John McCain

:D

I've discussed within this blog before just what are my three main priorities in this election. The Iraq War, terrorism, and the Supreme Court. It is because of these priorities, I have already voted absentee for Senator Barack Obama three weeks ago.

I do have other concerns of course, but they either take a lower position within my hierarchy of concerns, or in the case of Church and State Separation and civil rights, are combined as an element with the Supreme Court.

However, before I launch into a discussion of how these three main priorities weighed in my decision to vote for Obama, I want to take a moment and explain what is not a priority for me in this election.

It is my hope that if you one of the 14% who do not yet know to vote for but intend to vote tomorrow, that this analysis of what lead me to vote for Obama will help you.

I apologize for the length of this article - you can skip to the end for the endorsement, or digest it into smaller parts if you need to.
__________________________

The Non-Priorities
This list is not meant to be complete, nor is it meant to be objective - although I tried to be. These are largely my opinions on these issues and from what I know.

Taxes. For liberals and a great majority of Americans, taxes do not represent a burden. We realize that the monies collected by our government largely goes for services that are essential to a civil, fair society. We just ask that you tax us fairly, and spend wisely for programs and infrastructure that have real demonstrable benefit. Just make sure to cover our collective expenses and do not burden generations to come.

But let's get real. If either McCain and Obama would be committing political suicide if either of their tax plans damaged the middle class. The debate that remains is just the haggling over how much should the most richest of us should pay – corporations included. That is social policy, not socialism.

The fear mongering over taxes by the republicans has simply failed to convince me to move this issue into one of my priorities.

Economy, Markets, and Regulation. In relation to a strong economy we need the proper amount of regulation for the circumstances we temporaneously find ourselves in. At times we need less regulation and at times we need more. (Like the tax rate.) Before Reagan, the richest were taxed too much and the economy slowed because of it. Reagan was wise in adjusting the tax rate and for deregulation Ma Bell – airlines, however, has not been as successful. Clinton further tweaked the Regan and Bush's legacy which lead to more economic goodness. Bush went totally off the rails and McCain would continue along that course.

Obama would return to Clinton's tweaks and this will in return keep investment at home and start to cover some of the enormous national debt under Bush's mismanagement and tax cuts that McCain would recklessly continue unabated.

There are smart liberal and conservative economists who continue to be benefited by a government which allows for a wide range of experimentation. I think this is a good thing which will lead to the best and most effective set of principles and methodology to guide our economy over time.

Universal Health Care. While I think it's a fantastic idea that should be implemented at least cover to children until the age 18, I am not necessarily hung up over UHC at this time.

McCain and Obama agree on the necessity of UHC, just their implementation differs. Both Obama and McCain offer a hybrid approach between government and business, but by different means.

Frankly, I don't think either candidate will deliver UHC – although, I think Obama is more inclined because of the interests he represents.

Character. At first, I did not care that Obama is quick-tempered and was promiscuous in college, bombed innocent civilians, endorsed by a Minister who blamed the holocaust on the Jews, and was decidedly un-Christian for the divorce of his first wife to marry another.

Oh wait, that's John McCain.

McCain has largely run his campaign on Obama's character as a merit for his leadership over Obama. This approach and the quality and the kind of attacks by McCain leads me to question the quality and direction of McCain's leadership, not whether or not that McCain can lead.

Experience. The argument by McCain that he should be elected because he is more experienced simply fails to impress me. A man 30 years older than McCain would have more experience than him. Experience means nothing, unless you let that experience guide your decisions in the future. Obama is indeed amenable and able to revise and change course when things are not working as facts and situations dictate. McCain holds on to those past judgments as absolute truths in respect to the Iraq War, regulation of the economy, and terrorism.

Immigration. I do think we need to tweak our immigration system and provide a better path to citizenship for many people who indeed want to become Americans. For the most part, I really like most features of the guest worker policy proposed by President Bush, but disliked the harsh criminalization of illegal immigrants by our very own Congressmen Jim Sensensbrenner.

MILFS. I might be in the minority, but damn - I think Cindy McCain is quite the cougar. Meow!

Second Amendment. We have an unequivocal right to bear arms. This June, in a 5 - 4 ruling by the Supreme Court, overturned the handgun ban in DC. I think they ruled correctly.

The Constitution does not enumerate what kind of arms we can or can not own, therefore regulation of those arms is necessary. Honestly, would you be comfortable if your neighbor was building pipe bombs for self-protection, or owned an RPG? Since the Constitution is so vague, conflicts over the 2nd Amendment are inevitable.

There is much demonization of the left by the right over this issue. No, liberals are not coming for your guns - you got that? You do have the right to protect yourself in your home and businesses. I unequivocally support the right to bear arms like many liberals I know do.

However, if you think that your hand gun or shot gun is really going to protect you from the government if it should turn against you – as some arguments insist, you live in an entirely different world than many of us do.
__________________________

On the Candidates
I know in my lifetime, I will never see the election of President who will repeal these awful drug laws, get government out of the choices that I or a woman make over the sovereignty our bodies, and stop playing up their piety to God and legislating laws based upon that Biblical worldview.

Way back last year – prior to this year's primaries, my buddy and I were discussing the possible candidates leading up to his election. I described to him what I liked about both possible Republican and Democratic candidates.

Senator Ron Paul. I agreed with him on Iraq and liked his iconoclasm, but found his views toward markets and church and state too extreme for my taste.

One note: I really hate using the word extreme to describe a person. While I don't agree with a majority of Paul's views as I find his libertarianism to right leaning, I don't think he is someone you should fear - like "extreme liberal" that right-wingers will generally use as a derogation to scare voters.

Senator John McCain. I do respect him for his work on finance reform with Senator Russ Feingold and his years of public service from the Navy to the Senate. I thought he was direct and honest. Loved it when confronted the religious right as agents of intolerance, however he lost that credibility when he appeared at Farwell's Liberty University during the primary season and pandered his way as their candidate. Because of that pandering, I am wary of who he will appoint to the Supreme Court.

His elevation of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his vice president, who is decidedly unqualified to hold office much less lecture on the Supreme Court, only confirms McCain's desire to appeal to the religious right of this country and a real lack of quality decision making. Added to that, his views on how he would lead us out of Iraq, disqualified him eternally in my mind.

Senator Chuck Hagel. While he's as every bit a social conservative like John McCain, the retiring Senator from Nebraska said a lot of really smart things about Iraq and the need to withdraw and the necessity of resolving the conflict to bring our troops back home.

If the Democrats did not offer up as strong candidate as Senator Obama and it was Hagel as nominee instead of McCain, there would have been a strong possibility I would be voting Hagel for president. And if Biden was his vice president as the idea was floated around, we would have had a very strong, qualified ticket to resolve the crisis in Iraq and get back to defeating a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

And while Chuck is very wrong on stem cell research, the criminalization of abortion, he is correct that we must move forward on Iraq and draw down.

Yes, I am very nearly a single issue voter in this election.

Senator Joe Biden. I gave serious thought for voting for Biden in the primaries for the reasons I addressed with Senator Hagel above. He dropped out though and I voted for Barack over Clinton because of the consistency of Obama's views and policy over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ironically, in my support of Biden his views and legislation on drug policy I disagree with. The no-default rule entirely avoids Constitutional protections on property, liberty, and due process. However, it's standing law now and it needs to be repealed post-haste.

Senator Hilary Clinton. While I thought Bill Clinton was an above average president, I was never sold on Hilary. Her vote to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq is still too much of a political liability for Democrats. We saw this dynamic play out with John Kerry in 2004.

It should be noted, that Chuck Hagel also voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq. For the Democrats who voted for the Iraq War this is still a political liability, however for Republicans who change their position about Iraq it is not. Incoherent and as unfortunately that this is –  this is still the political reality of the United States today.

Senator Russ Feingold. I wish he would have run. He was correct about Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the Patriot Act. Feingold has shown balanced and reasoned judgment through his years in the Senate. And he's also correct - it's about time for a cheesehead president!

Senator Barack Obama. Before the primaries I really didn't know much about the new Senator from Illinois, other than the great speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic Convention, his relative youth, and that he was a guest lecturer on the Supreme Court at the University of Illinois for about a decade. Of course, during the primary process I learned much more about him as he had momentum decidedly in his favor over Clinton.

Honestly, I underestimated Obama's electability as I didn't think America was ready for an African-American president and only thought that a woman could be elected office of president if she came from the right wing of American politics.

Obama defeated Clinton in the primaries which is no small undertaking.
_________________________

On the Priorities
These are my main 3 main reasons why Obama should be president and why McCain should be returned to the Senate.

In my opinion, these reasons illustrate definitive demarcations between each candidate.

The Iraq War. I've disagreed with this war all along. Attacking Iraq for the lies we were sold, confirmed by the absence of WMD's, and the continued moving of the goal posts as reasons to continue to occupy this country, I simply find unconscionable.

Initially, Barack Obama supported a 16-month exit, but has moved more to the center with a 16-month reduction in forces. Unlike McCain, who in May said that timetables would be catastrophic, even if Iraq wants it. Obama's views have changed to meet the facts on the ground. Iraq wants us out, and is already negotiating with us to withdraw by 2011.

McCain never convinced me he knew what to do with Iraq. Victory, he said, would determine when we pulled out Iraq, and that victory would assure victory in Iraq and would determine victory over Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. This position by McCain is incoherent and circular. Timetables keep stakeholders responsible and cognizant of the urgencies involved. McCain seemingly does not want to hold Iraq responsible for its own security and self-determination. Obama will.

Only Obama recognizes the realities on the ground, while McCain lives in a world of his own spin hitching his wagon to Bush's policy of never-ending occupation of Iraq because he can not-qualify what "victory" means.

Despite Obama's fudging, the "surge" has worked well enough, even if not all benchmarks have been met. The Iraqis are standing up for themselves. Let's take what we can get. We must now seize this opportunity to re-align our forces.

Only Obama has taken the pragmatic approach with Iraq and shows the agility to adjust his views and his leadership which will bring our people home and redeploy our forces in the fight against Al Queda and the Taliban.

Meanwhile, McCain will endlessly spin on "victory"  because the word focus group's well.

Terrorism and Afghanistan. I agree with the necessity of invading Afghanistan and wiping out the Taliban, Al Queda, and killing that jackass, Osama bin Laden. This is why the war in Iraq has been a terrible waste of resources and lives in this regard, even though I am glad there is one less bad guy in the world.

Recently, commanders called for 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan. Our resources are stretched because of the continued occupation of Iraq.

Obama sees the need for redeployment of forces to concentrate on Afghanistan and the difficulties caused by throwing so much into Iraq. McCain, doesn't seem to get this functionally.

The Supreme Court. The court has simply moved to far to the right, with the recent appointments of Judges Roberts and Samuel Alito. McCain sold his political soul to the religious right and for this reason, gay rights, 1st Amendment rights of free speech and press will be in jeopardy if the court should migrate any further.

I am confident that even if Obama were to select even a conservative jurist to become a Supreme Court justice, that this justice will consider legal precedent, respect the purity of the state and the purity of religion. Regardless of political orientation, I think it is more likely that Obama will pick qualified candidates that are not selected off of Dobson's short list like McCain will, and as former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner stated - not rule on cases according to the court's present ideological make-up, but in light of the precedent established by previous Supreme Court rulings.

This is the kind of judicial temperament that Obama will bring to the court.

__________________________

Vote Obama
No candidate is perfect, of course. If we each lived on separate islands, we would all have the very simple task when it came to electing a leader.

Obviously, we don't.

Yet, we have this social contract with one another regulated by a government for and by the people. We must necessarily elect representatives for office in Washington and in our local communities, even though in many cases we hold our noses when we do.

Obama's message of hope and change is a great start, and when I begin to consider how each candidate would lead in respect to Iraq, terrorism, and the Supreme Court, Senator Obama is clearly the choice for me. As well as a number for a number of prominent conservatives, from Colin Powell, Christoper Buckley, Scott McClellan, Kevin Adelman, Francis Fukuyama who've endorsed the Senator from Illinois here and here.

McCain can not lead the economy, or any of the issues I discussed in a new, innovative ways. McCain knows this. This is why McCain must appropriate Senator Obama's language, but not the policies which will bring real meaningful change. The brand of "maverick" is unearned and as hollow as the word victory which McCain uses to discuss how he would resolve Iraq.

Perhaps, the most skeptical of Obama is a fairly conservative publication, The Economist. I think they make a great case for why you too should vote for Barack Obama:

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Clearly, these three reasons for the Obama presidency have become three reasons against a McCain presidency.

Vote Obama!

In government, the role of science holds an advisory position informing the President and as to how public policy should be directed.

During Bush's presidency, climate science and health science became politicized. Bush simply did not like the conclusions of these scientific investigations because of his prior political and religious commitments. There are well documented cases and hearings by the Committee of Oversight and Government demonstrating how science was bent or ignored and scientific integrity damaged.

With McCain we can rest assured that he will continue down the path that Bush has taken in regards to global climate change and health education, even though he would take – as Colin Powell describes a "maverick approach."

Barack Obama understands the importance of scientific integrity and the role of science in relation to good governance. Stating that he would "restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees" in a questionairre to the SEA – Scientists and Engineers of America.

Ed Lazowska, chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Chair of Computer Science at the University of Washington, a member of the academy of engineering explains why he endorses Senator Barack Obama over John McCain.




_____

It's also an understatement to say just how important the internet is in for all our lives. Vint Cerf, a computer scientist, and the "person most often called 'the father of the Internet," who holds honorary degrees and awards from include the National Medal of Technology, the Turing Award, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, explains why net neutrality is import and why Obama receives his vote.



_____

Marty Chaife, this year's nobel prize winner (along with 60 others) in chemisty explains why he endorses Obama.

In order for the president to lead, he must make good decisions.

It's not a maverick we need at this time, but a president who is willing to listen and then wise enough to implement the advice he receives. McCain will only stay the course.

This is why that many prominent conservatives (here and here) judge Barack Obama as a man of good character and a man more qualified to direct policy and lead the United States over John McCain.

It is an understatement to say how important science is in our daily lives. Science is the best and only method of inquiry which we have to confront the challenges that we face and plan for the future.

Barack Obama gets it.

 Hold the presses.

It ain't true.

Apparently, a 20-year-old college student, Ashley Todd, invented the whole thing.

"Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM when the man approached her from behind, put a knife with a 4- to 5-inch blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away."

That usual suspect... a black man. Surprised? Nah... Todd then alleged that "he then sat on her chest, pinned her hands down with his knees and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife."

"They just started talking to her and she just opened up and said she wanted to tell the truth..." Bryant said.

 So the attack never happened.

(Stop for a moment and exercise your powers of observation in the picture. What's become of college lately?)

Anyway, ignore all of that for a moment.

For the sake of argument, let's say this attack really did happen and everything that Todd alleges is true. In fact, let's also pretend that the Pittsburgh police caught the suspect and he confessed to the attack and the attack was politically motivated.

What should the response of liberals and democrats be?

Should we say suspend  judgment and say, well we don't know what Todd could have said to incite such violence? Should we blame Todd for inviting the attack? I mean we could not see what Todd had said, so perhaps she had said something in which begged this man to attack her. In fact, she deserved it.

No.

The proper response would be to condemn this person and an attack like this.

Liberals have no need to play Team "D" at the expense of common sense and respect to people rights.

However, some do (Amy Hemmer ... Amy Hemmer) because they must play Team "R" at all costs.

Lesson today: Do not defend the indefensible.

When you do, you've only exposed yourself as the hypocrite that you thought you gotcha'ed.

Very few – if any, deathbed conversion stories pan out to be reliable.

For example, Charles Darwin. It was said that he renounced evolution and embraced Christianity on his deathbed. A fabricated story. Darwin died an atheist and still convinced of the science he so painstaking tested over the course of some 20 years.

Despite the unreliability of these deathbed conversion stories, they continue to hold a power over us and play upon our imaginations for whatever reason.

There is no need for imagination where the reliability of present day political conversions and endorsements are concerned though. Much has been made of the oft Hilary Clinton supporter so miffed by Senator Obama's candidacy, who are now voting for Senator McCain. Yet, little has been said of republicans, or conservatives, who have endorsed Senator Obama instead of the de facto Republican Party leader and candidate, Senator John McCain. And I am not talking about those conservatives, like George Will, Kathleen Parker or Ken Adelman, who blasted McCain for his inane pick of Sarah Palin - which is quickly becoming McCain's own Harriet Myers moment.

Until now.

Here are just a few of the more prominent republicans and conservatives who have broken with their fellow partisans. Their collective endorsements directly rebut the criticisms by republicans and other conservatives against Obama that he is not able or ready to lead.

Colin Powell. In probably the most high profile of all endorsements, Republican and former Bush administration cabinet member  rebuffed McCain for his smears against Obama and stated "I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- and you have to take that into account -- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance..."

Christoper Buckley. When the son of the late National Review founder, William F Buckley, endorsed Obama for president he forced to resign his small column due to the hate mail he recieved. On Obama, Buckley stated that "Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for."

Scott McClellan. Off the heals from the recent publishing of his book criticizing Bush over the policy to war with Iraq, the former Bush press sectary stated "From the very beginning I've said I'm going to support the candidate who has the best chance of changing the way Washington works and getting things done. I will be voting for Barack Obama."

Republicans for Obama. A grassroots organization of republicans who  have campaigned and voted republicans for "all their lives." They endorse Obama because "Senator Obama has rejected the politics of division and the win-at-all-costs attitude that has hurt our ability to move forward as a nation. While we as Republicans will not always see eye to eye with a President Obama, we know that his politics of competency and unity will lead to a stronger America."

Are these types endorsements convincing to voters? 

Curiously, Obama did receive a boost in the polls after Powell's endorsement. The Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll showed a 11 point sway in Obama's favor, with 2 in 10 independents who are now more likely to vote for Obama in the wake of Powell's endorsement.

Will this ultimately sway the undecided come November 4th?

I do not know.

The reasons for why people vote the way they vote are complex and not easily understood and I do not wish to pay the issue lip service in this small space. However, it is interesting to note the reasons why when a member of either political persuasion endorses a rival candidate and what convinced them. I've voted for a "rivals"  in the past and it has always been a curious experience for me.

Why? It's a matter of priorities. If a republican would deliver gay marriage rights, protect a woman's reproductive rights, stand firm on the separation Church and State, repudiate racism (which many do obviously), and rebuff faith-based funding, I would vote for that republican despite my disagreements on the role and size of government or other areas of policy. (These are not my main priorities in this election, however.) The why's transcends the how's in this case.

Allegiance to party does not obviate progressive necessity and human rights.

Likewise, the above republicans and conservatives have prioritized their concerns and have endorsed Obama accordingly.

It should be obvious to all Americans that we live in a democracy and not a theocracy, despite the inevitable conflicts between church and state.

Democracies and theocracies are mutually exclusive forms of governance. You can not have a government for and by the people, and a government which exists to carry out God's laws.

For instance, take blaspheme. In Mark 3:29 we are informed that "...whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven, but is guilty of eternal sin." One such famous case of blaspheme is the Trial of C.B. Reynolds from the late 19th century.

Wait, one second... Screw you! Holy Spirit!

Anyway, where our democracy is explicit about free speech - despite some wrongful exceptions to the contrary, nowhere does the United States Constitution (a legal document) state that speech is not "free" except with a few conditions. 

Like blaspheme for instance.

Sarah Palin was interviewed by Bob Dobson of Focus on the Family (ie. hate the gay) yesterday.

"... it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God's hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4."

And what if Obama wins? Will that be God's will too?

Probably not. It's only God's will when something you want happens, happens. If it does not happen, well then - it's your fault.

"It is that intercession that is so needed," she said. "And so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation. And I so appreciate it."

Palin thinks that God will intervene and turn McCain's and Palin's fortune around come election day. Palin ascribes to Third Wave Theology, a doctrine which asserts that the Holy Spirit is an active and approachable entity in  people's lives.

Basically, God will appoint the Republican ticket to the office of President by intervening in the vote.

If it is His will for the Palin/McCain to win all along, why the need to pray for it? God is omniscient after all, and should know a priori what your hopes and desires are. God is also omnipotent. How would the groveling by a Christian change His mind if Obama was not God's pick for President?

No. Don't bother to harmonize the contradictions. For each one you do, you invoke hundred more.

Confirming this, Dobson stated that he and his wife would pray for "God's intervention."

Funny that is.

While Republicans will endlessly cry about ACORN and alleged voting fraud by the organization, they have no problem with usurping your vote by appealing to God to rob you of yours.

Is there any wonder that Sarah Palin was at first an energizer to the McCain campaign, and then a drag?

Wow, this woman leaves me speechless. She'll vote against her and her husband's interest because she hopes Yahweh will pick up the slack?

Her reasons against Obama? His name. Not her brand of Christianity. Obama's father was a Muslim; his mom an atheist? All of which are incorrect. Obama's mother, Christian. Obama's father, at first Muslim then an atheist. Obama made the decision to be a part of the body of Christ.

This woman, Tracy, speaks in coded racism.

Oh my. So much here ... I don't know where to begin with this.

Between Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin, Palin is the odd man out in these elections.

Obama, McCain, and Biden do have command of the issues - even if we may not agree them. Their individual intelligence and experience on the issues is self-evident. With Palin, all we hear is string of badly connected talking points and campaign soundbites.

Palin, on the other hand, is greatly out-classed. Half the time her answers are unintelligible garbage, and the balance she's busy sounding like a lipstickified version of Bush. Doggone it!

Allow me to be generous.

Perhaps it is not McCain's bad judgment that drove him to pick that one, but McCain's humor. In the vice-presidential debate last week, Sarah Palin must have been referring to McCain's humor when she stated that "it was a lame attempt at a joke... I guess, because nobody got it." (Transcript)

I think I now get it.

I hope that I am not the only one that realizes the joke that McCain is pulling on us with Palin.

Ahhhh! This is to good to pass up! Remember a few years ago during the run up to the 04 elections when D ick Cheney said that "if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States" on why Americans should not elect Kerry? In a debate I sarcastically suggested that if we were to take Cheney's arguments seriously that no other team like he and Bush were able to protect us, we should also vote for them in 08, 12, 16, 18... You get the idea.

Now this website, argues exactly that:

The important thing to understand about so-called "term limits" is that they are man's law, not God's Law. The God who parted the Red Sea is surely not worried about so-called "term limits". When you vote your faith you let Almighty God take care of the details.

Presidential term limits are not in the Bible. And they were not in our Constitution until added by an activist congress in 1951

I assure you we will hear this argument plenty that instead of Bush and company, any Republican by proxy can only protect us. Um, yeah, these same people believe that Clinton was in office on 9/11. Oh yeah, that's right...Bush was.

This has to be the Republican equivalent of Poe's Law. Well, even if this site is a parody, I strongly suggest that anyone with an "insipid fascination" with Bush, should put pen to paper. Please.