New York Times Columnist Questions McCain's Patriotism

A columnist for the increasingly irrelevant New York Times, Frank Rich has a column this weekend where he questions Senator John McCain's patriotism. I've had my disagreement with McCain's positions on issues and his pandering to the media, but there is no doubt of his love of this country.

John McCain epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition. On Wednesday night he could be seen sneering when Obama pointed out that most of the debt vilified by Republicans happened on the watch of a Republican president and Congress that never paid for “two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

Is failing to smile when President Obama criticizes your political party the new definition of patriotism? Does Rich even remember the Bush years when anytime the administration or their supporters complained about the actions/statements of the opposition they were accused of the unpardonable sin of "questioning their patriotism?" No, instead we heard endlessly that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." In fact, Byron York or the Washington Examiner found some rather telling quotes from past columns by Frank Rich where he looked at political dissent quite differently solely because of which party was being criticized.

If the New York Times had any decency left they would can this partisan hack tomorrow. However, they have no journalistic standards and since Rich toes the NYT party line he won't even be called onto his bosses carpet.

Endorsement for President of the United States of America

Tomorrow between 130 million and 160 million people will go to the polls and elect the next president. Many people will endorse a candidate and give a couple reasons why they prefer that one over the other (or others, if you actually acknowledge Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bobb Barr, and friends). This time I'd rather address various concerns and how the candidates stack up on those particular issue.

If you care about security and national defense, here is how they compare:
Sen. John McCain - A lifetime of military service, followed by decades in the Senate fighting for defense issues including fighting against misguided spending.
Sen. Barack Obama - Scant history, but wrong on the only issue he has expressed an opinion on - the surge in Iraq. Also, has discussed cutting defense spending by 25% and discontinuing any anti-missile defense spending.

I'll give that one to McCain. Make your own call.

If you care about foreign affairs:
McCain - Has been repeatedly tested and will be respected by foreign leaders.
Obama - Very naive and assumes leader of hostile nations can be talked into being nice. Chose Sen. Biden as his running mate because of Biden's vast experience in foreign affairs. Problem is Biden has decades of being wrong on nearly every issue that has come up.

I kind of think that one goes to McCain as well.

If you care about the economy:
McCain - Not an economist by his own admission. However, we can count on him to work diligently to curb excessive government spending.
Obama - Will raise taxes causing a much deeper and longer recession. His positions that he admits to border on European socialism. His long associations with admitted communists like Bill Ayers and Frank Davis leave me thinking socialism is the least of our concerns with Obama.

McCain isn't my first choice on this issue, but he is far better than his opponent again.

If you care about character and personality:
McCain - Positives: Survived several years in a POW camp and his fellow prisoners compliment him as a major boost to their morale because of his open defiance of prison officials and refusal to accept early release from prison based on his father's seniority.
Negatives: After returning from prison, he cheated on and later divorced his first wife, Carol, who had been seriously injured in a car accident while he was gone.
Obama - Positives: Seems like a good family man with a happy marriage.
Negatives: Attended a church with a goofy racist preacher for twenty years and had no problem associating with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, etc.

Feeling generous I'd almost call this a tie. However, Obama's repeated misjudgments of people seriously call his ability to differentiate right from wrong into question.

If you are worried about excessive government intrusion into our lives:
McCain - Has long advocated a limited role for our government.
Obama - Is a major proponent of increased government influence through a national health care plan.

McCain looks better here.

If you're anxious for increased spending on failed social service programs then Sen Obama is the candidate for you. From his failures with the Annenberg Challenge, which spent a hundred million dollars and made no difference in Chicago inner city schools to the tax payer money he wasted to improve his district (you know - the $100,000 Gazebo) he has shown a real fondness for spending other people's money.

If you think we need to continue to force lending institutions to provide home loans to high-risk buyers then Obama is your guy. He is the Fannie Mae sponsored candidate.

If you're concerned about First Amendment rights:
McCain - Co-Author and defender of McCain/Feingold Act which infringed on our right to free speech.
Obama - Expected to take action to restore the misnamed Fairness Doctrine in order to silence talk radio.

Once again, I'll call this a tie though the Fairness Doctrine seems like a greater threat to our rights.

If you're concerned about Second Amendment rights:
McCain/Palin - Both endorsed by the NRA. Palin is an avid hunter and outdoorsman.
Obama/Biden - Prior to running for president, Obama was an extremist against 2nd Amendment rights. He even disagreed with the right of someone to defend themselves in their home.

McCain is your only choice in this regard. Not even close.

Do you want more or less government? I want gridlock more than increased government action. Consider what an Obama election would mean. We'd have an extremely liberal congress (both houses) with an equally liberal rubber stamp in the White House. With a McCain election, anything he proposed would be fought in congress and if congress voted for anything overly ridiculous then McCain could veto.

If you care about the destination of your soul:
McCain/Palin - Don't just talk the talk on pro-life, they live those values.
Obama/Biden - Most pro-abortion presidential ticket ever. Obama has gone so far as to oppose legislation that would require treatment for children who survive abortions out of fear that any infringement on abortion could threaten Roe v. Wade.

Personally, when I meet my maker I'll have enough to account for that I don't want to have to defend voting for Obama.

Bottom line: If you have any concern about the future of our country Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin are the choice going forward. Go with Obama/Biden if you want bad people running bad government.

Today's Good Sign

The Obama campaign and its accomplices in the media and polling businesses have done their best to sell the idea that Obama's election is a fait accompli. However, their actions tell a different story. Here is today's good sign that this election is a lot closer than they want you to believe:

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama returns to Iowa on Friday where he'll headline a midday rally in Des Moines.

If polls could be believed then Sen. Obama wouldn't waste any precious time in these last few days in a state he seemingly has in the bag. Sen. McCain has never been especially popular in Iowa due to his stance against ethanol subsidies. Iowa neighbors Obama's state of Illinois and his victory in their caucuses early in the primary race gave him much needed credibility. If he is nervous about Iowa I'm feeling better about the whole game.

Separately, instead of in a clear plastic bag, this morning our newspaper came in a bag that said in large print:

DEFEND FREEDOM
DEFEAT OBAMA

PAID FOR BY NRA-POLITICAL VICTORY FUND. WWW.NRAPVF.ORG
NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE

You make less than $250K so why should you care about Obama's tax increases?

I bet most folks have run into friends, family members, neighbors etc., who are unconcerned about the tax implications of this election. A lot of folks just don't care or don't believe it will impact them personally. Sen. Obama clearly understands this and threw out a big number - $250k or a quarter of a million dollars - as the income level that will see an increase in their tax burden. That is a neat dividing line. Most voters make far less than that amount and those that make well above that amount are a small enough segment of the voting population that it is safe to threaten to raise their taxes. You can explain to those people that raising taxes will deepen and lengthen the recession or explain how an overtaxed business owner will hire less employees, not give raises, not expand, etc. Problem is that argument doesn't seem to get through to a lot of people. The mindset remains that as long as I make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year it won't matter to me. The better argument to make is to let people know Obama is lying. When they look suprised that you are certain he's lying, ask those people "what from Obama's limited history would lead them to believe he is telling the truth?" When he ran for the senate he campaign on a promise to work for a middle class tax cut. Never happened. When his racist demogogue pastor became public knowledge his first answer was "I could no more disown him than I could my White Grandmother." Within a month he not only disowned "Rev." Wright but had also tossed his grandmother under the bus as a "typical white person." Another example is public financing for his campaign. Last year, both he and Sen. McCain gave their word to live with the limits of accepting public financing. However, he showed his word is worthless by continuing to go with private contributions. Ask them who will force Obama to keep his word? A senate lead by Harry Reid? A house of representative run by San Fran Nancy Pelosi? Not hardly. They are left with just taking the word of a guy who has never voted for a tax reduction or against a tax hike.

Bottom line: If you believe Obama will only raise taxes on the rich then you likely would also be inclined buy a bridge from a snake-oil salesman. And remember income taxes are far from the only way they can reach into your pocket.

Disclaimer: While I cited Obama's refusal of public funding after promising to abide by those limits as evidence of his untrustworthiness, I am not a fan of tax payer monies being spent on campaigns. Let candidates spend their own money or the money of people dumb enough to donate to their campaigns, but don't use money confiscated from citizens to fund their quixotic job hunts.

Answering the defectors

Charles Krauthammer has a column today explaining his decision to vote for Sen. McCain and knocking down the weak-sisters who defected to endorse Sen. Obama.

Contrarian that I am, I’m voting for John McCain. I’m not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it’s over before it’s over. I’m talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they’re left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling “Stop!” I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

Read the rest. I will quibble with his description of Christopher Hitchens as a conservative of any stripe. Hitchens supported the War on Terror, but he never was anything except a steadfast liberal.

Don't lose hope!

The media and the pollsters have been attempting to create an air of inevitability regarding Sen. Obama's election. It is a transparent ploy to discourage Republicans and in turn reduce voter turn out. Don't buy into their narrative. Write a different result.

Here are somethings to consider as the election nears. Share them with people you know who are undecided or leaning towards voting for the Hopey-Change guy just assuming that any change is improvement.

The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama. This is a long, well-researched breakdown of various reasons to have reservations about Sen. Obama. However, despite the title it is hardly comprehensive.

PA Governor 'Nervous,' Sees McCain Surge. If Gov. Rendell thinks the Obama campaign is in trouble in Pennsylvania it is because he is seeing internal polling that McCain is stronger in rural Pennsylvania than they previously believed. If Obama loses Pennsylvania he can thank Rep. John "My constituents are racist rednecks" Murtha for all his help.

The Bill Ayers Problem. Some people think the Ayers situation has played out and the electorate isn't interested. That could be true if Sen. Obama hadn't been dishonest when initially asked about Ayers. However, instead of being honest, Obama tried to minimize his history of relations with Ayers by saying "He's just some guy in my neighborhood." Since then he has reluctantly and gradually admitted more and more involvement with an unrepentant domestic terrorist. If there was nothing to be ashamed of then there would have been no need to lie. There is more to this story. The question is when will the story be told? What has come out so far is troubling but not as much as his 20 years in "Rev." Wright's hateful, racist church. The rest of the story must be much bigger for him to have bothered lying about the relationship. Evidence is growing that Ayers (an accomplished writer) actually was the ghost writer for Obama's book Dreams of my Father. Why does that matter? It matters for two reasons. There are some people who jumped on the Obama bandwagon partly because they read and liked the book and thought it reflected well on his intellect (perversely including Bill Buckley's son). Equally important is this would come across as a deliberate lie and some people don't like that.

The HOPE ON Project (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now) is a thirteen part series of posts spearheaded by Tom Blumer of BizzyBlog explaining Obama's unfitness for higher office. Here are links to the first three - One, Two, Three. The rest of the posts in the series will be added each day leading up to election day.

Like it or not, race will play a role in this election and how the results are interpreted. The Bradley Effect theorizes that polls are less accurate in elections with a black candidate. This effect usually leads to polls overestimating the vote for the black candidate. Also, in this election season Sen. Obama and his supporters have at times way overplayed the race card. I sense a growing resentment among voters over feeling like you always have to watch your words to be sure you're not offending the easily offended.

There is anecdotal evidence that McCain is getting some crossover support from voters who would normally vote for the Dem presidential nominee. Some guy named Jack Zettler is the Democrat candidate for county auditor. Well, just in our neighborhood I've seen a half dozen homes with yard signs for both Zettler and McCain. I highly doubt these are lifelong Republicans crossing over to vote for Zettler. My guess/hope is these are Democrats with reservations about voting for Obama.

Lastly, though I don't trust polls until it is within a week of the election, here is a headline to keep you positive: AP presidential poll: Race tightens in final weeks The tightening was credited to the third debate and Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber.

Secret Life of an American Teenager

The title of this post is borrowed from a new television series that started a month or so ago. The show tells the story of a high school sophomore who discovers she is pregnant just as the new school year is starting. While some of the characters are overly exaggerated versions of common stereotypes, our family has taken to watching the show each week. With a daughter entering her sophomore year of high school the show has hit home.

What causes me to write about that show today is news out of the political world that vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin's 17 year-old daughter Bristol is 5 months pregnant. However, unlike Amy Juergens of the TV show, Bristol's life will be anything but secret. We all make mistakes, but this young lady will see hers play out on the most public of stages. I would recommend she not visit the internet for a while as there will likely be some ugly things written about her and her family. If you believe in the power of prayer keep Bristol Palin in your prayers.

Apparently, Sen. McCain was aware of this situation before making his decision and did not let the daughter's mistake affect his decision. I'm sure some who wanted another VP choice (Romney, Pawlenty, etc.) will point to this as evidence of poor judgment. Time will tell.

McCain's VP pick

John McCain will announce his vice presidential running mate in just over an hour just up I-75 at the Nutter Center in Dayton, Ohio. The latest on Drudge has speculation centering on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Nothing is for sure yet since yesterday I went to sleep thinking it would be Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Here are a few rambling thoughts on the selection.

* Romney was out of the running as soon as the McCain campaign ran the ads showing Sen. Biden questioning Sen. Obama's qualifications. Those ads basically knocked every one of McCain's GOP primary opponents out of the running.

* Palin brings a lot to the table to help shore up areas of concern regarding McCain. She is strongly pro-life. She is a life time member of the NRA. She has pushed for government reform to clean up Alaska. She does have an area of disagreement with McCain - She is an advocate of drilling for oil in ANWR. The best thing McCain could do is to explain that during the interview process she showed him how little of the 19 million acres of ANWR would be used for drilling and her grasp of energy policy and environmental issues not only convinced him to change his position on drilling in ANWR but also convinced him she would be a great running mate who would not just be a "yes man" but a teammate capable of challenging his positions. . . . .

* My understanding is that Mitt Romney and others who ran against McCain will be there in Dayton when the announcement is made. That is a great show of unity. It is also a shrewd move by Romney. He needs to be perceived as a team player to have a future. If he campaigns aggressively for a losing McCain effort he would quickly be the frontrunner in 2012. There is also talk that his recent move to California is a first step towards running for California governor in 2010. Would he be just the second person to serve as governor of two different states (Sam Houston Tennessee and Texas).

* Democrats will certainly jump on Palin's limited experience. However, they should tread lightly since she has more executive experience than their ticket. She also is not on the top of the ticket. President may not be on the job training, but the vice president is essentially always in training for an unexpected promotion.

* Gov. Palin has five kids and has given all of them odd (at least to me) names.

A good, solid, bold pick. Personally, I'm more please with the bottom of the ticket than the top.

An Interesting Townhall Debate Idea

Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain has invited/challenged his Democrat opponent, Sen. Barack Obama to a series of 10 townhall style debates. To date, Obama has rejected this idea. Earlier today in the comment section in another blog (Baseball Crank) I saw a great idea for McCain.

McCain ought to hit the campuses with a chair next to him upon which is a suit folded neatly.

He can explain that the empty suit is the closest he can come to getting his opponent to show up and debate him. And really what's the difference between the empty suit and Obama.

Unfortunately, McCain is unlikely to take that aggressive an approach. Then again, if Obama keeps sending folks out to denigrate McCain's military service maybe McCain will get angry enough to fight.

The Supreme Court blows another case

In a 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana is wrong in having the death penalty as a potential punishment for raping a child on the basis of it being cruel and unusual. One can reasonably argue that the death penalty itself is wrong and I can respect that point of view. However, if we allow that the death penalty is constitutional then it is a matter of deciding which offenses against societal norms of behavior warrant that punishment. In my view the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes that we need to discourage with the harshest of penalties. If brutally raping an innocent child doesn't meet the minimum standard for imposition of that penalty, then nothing should.

Justices Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy voted in the majority. The decision a president makes with the longest lasting impact is nominations to the federal bench including the SCOTUS. The next president will likely name two or three justices. I can not guarantee that Sen. McCain will name justices of the high caliber of Roberts or Alito. However, I can guarantee that Sen. Obama will name ones in line with Ginsberg and Breyer. Obama wouldn't even consider someone for that position unless they were dedicated to protecting the guilty and abandoning the innocent.

UPDATE:

Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online's Corner weighs in:

Evolving Standards
The death penalty used to be constitutional for barn-burning, horse stealing, fairly minor thefts etc. I completely agree that our evolving standards of decency make that seem like overkill, pardon the pun. But is it really a sign of our evolving standards of decency that brutally raping a child is also on that list? Are we more decent because we don't consider that a capital offense? I don't really see it.

Nope.

Nancy Reagan to Endorse McCain

Tonight I received an email asking about the newsworthiness of the announcement that former first lady Nancy Reagan was endorsing John McCain for President. My friend had two concerns. First, why bother endorsing someone who already has the nomination locked up. Secondly, she wondered if people even listen to Nancy Reagan anymore.

Normally, it would be a little late in the game to bother with an endorsement of a candidate who has more delegates than the minimum needed to secure the nomination. However, I believe this endorsement was requested by the McCain campaign in order to minimize the damage of a recent New York Times article that talked about rumors that McCain seriously considered switching party allegiances twice in the last several years. Because of his occasional actions that irritate the more conservative Republicans, the Times article was especially problematic. I'm certain this endorsement is intended to reassure conservatives by tying the nominee to the late president who is revered both for ending the Cold War and for restoring Republican pride after the Watergate scandal.

As to the second question, I don't know if anyone listens to Nancy and assumes they are hearing a close facsimile of Ronald Reagan's views. Her only significant political action in recent years has been in support of government funding of embryonic stem cell research which I think is not something President Reagan would have supported. Having said all that, I think she does speak for the late president in endorsing McCain. Sen. McCain supported and advanced the Reagan agenda in the 1980's and Reagan was reportedly very fond of McCain. I suppose we will find out whether anyone listens to her by examining polling data in the days following the announcement.

McCain's Campaign Strategy

Sen. McCain in securing the Republican nomination kept a grueling schedule to fight off the claim that he is too old for the job. McCain's age has led to comparisons between this election and 1980 when Ronald Reagan was similarly beset with old age comments. However, in some respects McCain's campaign could more aptly be compared with the 1960 race. McCain has talked of running a 50 state campaign. In 1960 Vice President Nixon vowed to campaign in all 50 states. In doing so, Nixon wasted valuable time in states he had no chance of winning. Additionally, while doing all the traveling to get to the 50 states, Nixon suffered a knee injury which got seriously infected forcing him to spend a couple weeks in the hospital. Even though Nixon was only 47 years old himself, the hospital stay contributed to the impression that the 44 year old John Kennedy was much more young and vibrant. Facing a much younger opponent, John McCain needs to guard against anything that would cause voters to question his health or stamina. Rather than give in to the temptation to prove his toughness by keeping a breakneck schedule, I'd caution McCain to divide his time judiciously and ensure he has something left in his tank for the stretch run.

John McCain Secures GOP Nomination

Tonight, with victories in Rhode Island, Vermont, Ohio and Texas, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) secured the Republican nomination for president. Meanwhile, the Democrats still have two candidates, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, competing to represent them in November. While the Dems sort out the head of their ticket, McCain can focus on choosing a running mate best suited to match his strengths and mitigate his weaknesses.

Ohio Primary Contest

Yesterday, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh created a stir by recommending that Republican voters in Ohio request a Democrat ballot and vote for Hillary Clinton. His reasoning was we want her to stay in the race so the Democrat candidates will continue to bash each other and more importantly spend more money contesting the remaining primaries. I did NOT follow Limbaugh's advice and hope no one else did either. There are a couple reasons I disagree with that idea. The main reason is I think we should play in our own sandbox. I've resented this idea in the past when Dems have suggested similar tactics and it would be hypocritical for me to change my tune now. Beyond that, based on their extremist position regarding abortion, I feel it would be morally wrong to vote for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton even just as a "joke" in a primary. Additionally, I think people are mistaken in thinking Clinton would be easier to beat in the general election. Polls may currently reflect Obama as doing better against John McCain. However, reality is Obama has yet to be fully vetted and once people start seeing the full picture the polls will swing accordingly. If Limbaugh succeeds and Clinton pulls off big wins today then we will hear a lot of talk about her resilience and she will assume the "Comeback Kid" label. Lastly, the one thing I learned from the Wizard of Oz movie is you better pour the water on the witch if you get a chance.