Posts Tagged ‘McCain’

One of the most common things I hear from people when asked about their preference for Obama or McCain is that they are adverse to risk.  In short, the McCain we all know and love versus the Obama we don’t know but want to love.

Or, as Obama puts it “the devil you know versus the devil you don’t.

In response to a comment warning liberals of the dire consequences of electing Obama, I began to put together a list of thing Obama could screw up, only to discover George W. has already done them all, with the exception of nuclear holocaust.  But don’t worry, he isn’t out of office yet.

So here is my list, please send in additional items.  I’m interested in seeing what there is left for Obama, or McCain, to screw up if elected.

  • Allow a terrorist attack on our soil
  • Run up the national debt
  • Oversee a housing crisis
  • Corrupt Department of Justice
  • Start a war
  • Invade another country (ok, make it two)
  • Lose a war (in progress)
  • Occupy another country (permanently by all appearances)
  • Allow a natural disaster to destroy a major American city
  • Alienate the US from the rest of the world
  • Encourage unrest in the Middle East
  • Oversee oil prices reach record highs
  • Prevent US from providing any leadership in world of diminishing natural resources
  • Avoid taking any role in preventing or dealing with the effects of global warming
  • Underfund our national park system
  • Prostitute our public lands out to industry
  • Torture our enemies
  • Enshroud our government in secrecy
  • Ignore the constitution
  • Watch economy collapse
  • Take a record number of vacation days

OK, Obama or McCain might beat that last one given Bush has already completed the to-do list.

  • Nuclear holocaust

Of course, the other way to look at it is which of these candidates, Obama or McCain, is more likely to fix these items.

And we all know the first step to fixing a problem is recognizing that you have one, and it is pretty clear only one of these candidates recognizes that.


Read Full Post »

Is anybody out there as confounded as I am with the current presidential race?  I keep seeing poll data released that shows the two candidates as reasonably close, or with “McCain making gains” in key states.

What, if anything, would endear anybody to vote for John McCain at this point?  He has issued no credible plans that reasemble any kind of departure fom the current policies of George W. Bush.

Furthermore, he has started to sound more and more incoherent, bringing him even more in alignment with the unintelligable Gerige W.  Is this a campaign stategy?  It worked for him once, twice actually.  Is McCain trying to become more like the common man?  I can recall hearing over and over how Bush was attractive to the “common man” because he spoke like them.

Do we really want a “common man” in the White House?  Don’t we want someone with a high level of intelligence running our country?  Isn’t that more important than sounding like you just left the corner bar?

Since when did it become a bad thing to have an intelligent president?

Or perhaps it is McCain’s age that has led him to his repeated gaffes.  (Gaffe will undoubtably be one of this years most overused words.)  Maybe his mind is finally starting to go.  I’ve always considered him to be a smart guy, well-spoken and focused; but that seems to be going.  Is it strategy, or is it senility?

And all this takes me back around to:  Why, in all that is great and good in this country is this still considered a race for the White House?

Obama is intelligent, he is a great orator, he has some vision of the future, he’s not George W. Bush, he has the ability to inspire.

Should we trust him?  No.  Should we trust any politician?  No.

But what we should consider about ur politicians is their intelligence and ability look ahead, something which has seriously been lacking, and their willingness to listen, be open and accountable to the public.  Since before 9-11, Bush’s administration has had a secretive, industry only access policy.  When we asked about events after 9-11, the mantra was “trust us.”

No, I don’t want to vote every 4 years and then trust a politiician.  I want to wake up everyday and take part in our democracy.  It is my right, and my responsibility as a citizen.

Perhaps it is because Obama is black?  I wonder how many people are afraid to vote for him due to that deeply buried feeling.

Anybody out there want to enlighten me?  I’m confused, and more than a little concerned.

Read Full Post »

A phenomenon unique to Fairbanks, at least in my experience, is the hand held street corner sign. It isn’t rare to see the sign bearers out in every Fairbanks’ season; braving the ice fog throughout our 8 months of winter, dodging splashes from passing cars during the 1 soggy week of breakup (commonly referred to as spring by outsiders), basking in the continuous daylight over the next 2 months of our precious summer, and finally waving politely to all the armed hunters during that 1 golden week of fall. (I know, there are least six weeks of the year missing, rumor has it they are hiding out somewhere between fall and spring.) Year after year, the sign bearers are out there, lobbying for car dealerships, furniture stores, or the long overlooked issue of jury rights.

Before I go any further, it is worth noting something about these sign bearers. Local Fairbanksans already know this, but for the benefit of all you outsiders, the summertime sign bearers are certifiable. Insane. Anybody Alaskan that would waste a seconds time during the summer standing on a street corner breathing exhaust fumes from the only people left in town, tourists, has got serious priority issues. Winter sign bearers make more sense. Not much, but some. At 20 below, there isn’t a whole lot to do, so why not stand around on a street corner breathing exhaust fumes, at least they are local.

In recent years, the most prominent sign bearers have been anti-war protesters and their counterparts, the pro-war protesters. Personally, I sympathize with the anti-war movement. It generally makes sense to protest death and destruction. On the other hand, I have a hard time taking on the viewpoint of the pro-war camp.

I mean, what are they yelling at passers-by?

“More casualties, yea!!!”

“10 more dead, yea!!!”

“Children left fatherless (or motherless), yea!!!”

“Saddam hung by the neck until dead, see it on you-tube, yea!!!”

“No end in site, yea!!!”

“Tour extended 6 more months, yea!!!”

Haliburton gets billions more in no-bid contracts, yea!!!”

But they are out there cheering, none the less. Go figure.

This year promises to give us some new signs, and maybe some new sign bearers. Like the hot air that blows in from Juneau and Washington, these signs and their bearers make their most notable appearances during election years. And if you hadn’t noticed, this is one of those years.

Already, we’ve been seeing Ron Paul supporters picketing for months. They’ve been all over the Cushman Street Bridge, before some even knew who Ron Paul was, and those were Republicans. Just for the record, Ron Paul is a perfect fit for the libertarian/Alaska Independence Party mindset of many in Fairbanks. He may even have some sway with the far left, if for no other reason than his anti-war stance.

Personally, I view the political spectrum as more of a circle than a line.  Maybe a sphere, like the earth. You can only go so far west before you end up in the east, and vice versa. If you go far enough to the right, pretty soon you will find yourself hanging out with the far left. So, somewhere between the far west and the far east, you might find Ron Paul. And for those of you looking at a globe, that’s pretty close to Alaska.

Last week, as I was heading home, there was a large group of the sign bearers gathered around the intersection of 3rd and the Steese. There were signs for the constitution re-writing Huckabee, maybe a Romney sign or two, a plethora of Ron Paul signs, children forced to prostate themselves by packing signs for the presidential candidate of their parents’ choice (also Ron Paul), and maybe one or two of those ‘other’ Republican candidates. I didn’t see any McCain, which would probably be the only Republican I would consider (however briefly) a vote for.

The Democratic candidates, oddly enough, weren’t represented at all at this gathering of picketers. This could be a sign of several things. One, Democrats may realize spending time or money promoting a candidate in Alaska is a waste of time. We have too few electoral votes and the likelihood of the state swaying from the recent trend of Republican voting is, well, unlikely. Two, that liberals are smarter than conservatives and know that standing on a street corner in the cold won’t sway any informed voters, and all the uniformed ones are voting Republican anyways. A recent study provides evidence of this difference in intelligence. Of course, it is based on SCIENCE so it undoubtedly has a liberal bias and should, and will, be ignored by the conservative faithful. Thanks to “daranee” for pointing that study out to me.

Oddly enough, if you go back a little ways in Alaska history it was a Democratic state, around the time when the state constitution was written, at least from what I understand of Alaska’s political history. I wonder if that is why the radical conservatives dislike the state’s constitution so much. So far it has worked well, keeping them in their own bed, though often alongside an oilman (or women, I didn’t mean to indicate any same-sex hankypanky going on here by our moral leaders), and out of the private citizens’ beds. But, I do wonder how long that will last.

Which returns me to this post, and how long it will last, given its tendency to stray from the subject. Not much further, I promise.

Despite the jests above, I enjoy most of the sign bearers and their signs. Protest and political activism is alive and well in Fairbanks. They create a lively, interactive, personable street presence that we don’t often have in Fairbanks.

However, I do wonder why we see such a stronger street side presence of conservative picketers than liberal ones. I would venture that, in general, liberals have more of a live and let live attitude. As long as someone is not hurting someone else, literally, then they should be allowed freedom of opinion and action. On the flip side, conservatives are more dogmatic. They believe there is a right and a wrong, and not much gray matter in between (their ears, I say). Sorry, that was uncalled for. But seriously, when an individual or group believes they are right, and that there is only one right choice, it places them in a position where they are more likely to impose their will on others, because, for God’s sake, they are right.

Which takes us back to Ron Paul. By no means am I an expert on his platform, but it would appear his views of the Constitution would be described as constructivist. In Fairbanks, that interprets into the libertarian ideal that the government mind its own business. Which is where I wonder if there isn’t something of a conservative hypocrisy in dealing with constitutional matters, say where property rights are treated as sacred, but a person’s right to privacy in their own life is not. For example, do what you will with your property regardless of what damage it does to the community (safety, property values, aesthetics, environmental damage, etc), but by God don’t think about getting married to your partner if you happen to be of the same sex. (Or the same class of animals we commonly refer to as mammals, as some fear.)

It will be an interesting year to watch the sign bearers, and watch the morphing of the groups and signs as the primaries end and the race heats up. I expect there will be Democrats and Republicans on opposing corners in a few months, likely some of the same anti-war and pro-war people we’ve been experiencing for too many years now will be back. Wouldn’t it be funny to have anti-war Republicans and Democrats bearing signs against the pro-war, well, Republicans.

As to the folly of standing on a corner promoting your candidate, I hope after the debacle of our current president people are taking a better look at the candidates than can be considered in a 5 second drive by, 60 seconds if you catch the light at the wrong time. Hopefully there is a desire from members of both parties to look for a spark of intelligence in a candidates eyes instead of a folksy down home apparition. To that end, we’ll all benefit regardless of what party ends up in the White House.

Read Full Post »