McCain does not offer much originality but then neither does Obama

Ok, so here we are in full swing of the campaign season. I don't understand the fascination with Barack Obama - what are Obama's credentials for President? Is the fascination with Obama that he is something new and fresh? Or is it something a little more "on the surface". Something to explore in the upcoming months.

So thanks to Yahoo News we get a story that McCain is promising to cut Government spending. Wow - how original. I think even John Kerry mentioned something about cutting out the waste in Government. I think he was thinking of focusing on the non essentials like the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies but maybe I have that wrong (sarcasm...).

So does the story think this is a good thing? Well news is supposed to be unbiased right - (there is no liberal bias according to Helen Thomas). Well Yahoo states:

"In just about any election, candidates promise to save money by cutting waste. It’s a pledge line in a speech that draws cheers from conservatives, but can become white noise to voters who’ve seen too many elected officials pledge fiscal responsibility, only to fail to deliver. Indeed, the path is so strewn with broken promises, there is little risk for candidates making the pledge because expectations are so low that they’ll make good on it."

So McCain is probably lying about this right? And more so, since expectations are so low there is little risk to McCain for such a pledge. I wonder if Yahoo and other news stories will remember this if McCain is elected or will they dodge him at every step asking how he has reduced the size of Government. I will leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusion.

Second thing I would like to highlight is this quote:"It’s a pledge line in a speech that draws cheers from conservatives,...". Let me get this straight...liberals don't want to cut waste? Why does a line like this draw conservative praise only? I just checked Obama's website and saw at least two major sections under his "Fiscal" Issues.

1. Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient
2. End Wasteful Government Spending

And as far as I know Obama's rhetoric is not only intended for conservatives. Oh, and one more thing. Part of Obama's platform is to "Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington". I seem to have read something similar in John McCain's platform. Yep, I did.

So color me confused. John McCain is not the conservative candidate, he is the candidate that the Boston Globe and the New York Times wanted because of that exact reason. McCain has a lot more to worry about then his urge for fixed-price contracts (which aren't always a good thing). But I find it funny that the Yahoo Story is telling the reader how difficult it may be for McCain to sell this plan since he admits that economic issues are not his "strong suit".

So noted Senator McCain. You have plenty of other issues that you are "strong" in. It was nice for the Yahoo story to point that out. Just what issues are not in Obama's strong suit? Where is he weak? I am sure that will be part of the next glowing portrayal of the Democratic contender.

OS

McCain is right about something

Not too jazzed about the race for the White House as the differences between the candidates are not as distinct as I would like them to be - but no one is listening to me anyway.

McCain is reported (at ABC News' Political Radar Blog) as suggesting:

"...Sen. Barack Obama may alter his promise to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months after meeting with US. General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq.

"I'm glad that he [Obama] is, for the first time, asking for a sit down briefing with Gen. Petraeus and I'll be very interested in what his position on Iraq is when he returns," McCain said during a satellite interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson Wednesday from Pittsburgh."

As I noted in my previous post Obama cannot (IMHO) hold to his current timetable to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months or less. Welcome to the party Senator McCain. Here is another softball for you - USA Today (and others) are reporting that Obama said "that the nation's chief priority should not be for immigrants to learn English, but for American children to learn Spanish". Any chance you want to chime in on this asinine statement? This is an easy one. Sure he said "immigrants should learn English" but my question is what policies is he putting in place to support that? Stick up for America Senator McCain - recapture some of your conservative credentials that so far in this campaign have been lacking.

YouTube video is here.


Outspoken Roman

Obama begins to get real on Iraq

I wrote previously on a story that came out of CNN back in September 2007 about the Dem candidates not willing to vow a pullout of Iraq by 2013. My feeling is that cold realism would hit the new president in the face come Jan 2009 and he (or she) would realize that this issue is a lot more complex than the right or the left thinks it is (like the lefties who think a President Obama will sign a withdraw order the first day he is in office).

So MSNBC has a story (this is also all over the news) that Obama has opened the door to potentially changing his Iraq Policy. So what is his policy - well if I can trust Obama's own website I get this info:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq."

So I think that is a load of crap but at least it seems clear to understand. So the MSNBC story had this quote from Obama when asked about his upcoming trip to Iraq. When asked Obama stated "“I am going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” he said. “I’m sure I’ll have more information and continue to refine my policy.” So his policy may be refined? Does this imply that he fully didn't grasp the issues before he chose to criticize Clinton and the President? Probably.

The MSNBC story also states:

"But later in the session, he said it is possible the 16-month timeline could slip if the pace of withdrawal needs to be slowed some months to ensure troop safety. “I have always said ... I would always reserve the right to do what’s best,” Obama said."

Nice to give yourself a back door isn't it Obama? Yahoo News, following up on the probably shift in Obama's policy stated why Obama is different than President Bush:

"I'm not somebody who, like George Bush, is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions. I want to pay attention to what is happening on the ground."

That is rich!! In my opinion it is the left's preconceived notions about Iraq that has driven Obama to strike his course to the extreme left on this issue and to garner their support he has been unwilling to examine the issue himself (he has not even been to Iraq - something McCain has called him on). I can see the front page when/if he gets elected - "To do the best for the troops and because President Bush's inability to plan I am extending the Miltary action in Iraq". You left wingers are actually trusting this guy.....?

We will see.

OS

A thought on the passing of Jesse Helms

Yahoo News by way of Reuters reports on the death of Jesse Helms:

Former Sen. Jesse Helms, a die-hard anti-communist firebrand who championed a wide range of conservative causes in his 30 years in the Senate, died early on Friday, aged 86, a foundation dedicated to his legacy said.

Helms was a leader in many of the issues critical to this country and its survivability as the nation it was set up to be in my opinion. But he of course had his critics. I love it when someone who apparently wants to be non-judgmental criticizes the deceased senator since he just can't help it.

Note this entry by David Waters over on the Newsweek Blog "Under God". Entitled "Judgment and Jesse Helms" Waters begins with this:

"Most of us have strong opinions about public figures, especially politicians and especially those we've never met. But my grandfather taught me never to speak ill of the dead.

So I'll pass on passing judgment on the late Sen. Jesse Helms, who seemed to spend so much of his life passing judgment on anyone who didn't fit his narrow view of what is right and good and Christian."

So while avoiding passing judgment on Helms, Waters does call Helms "bigoted" and "mean-spirited" and a "product of a particularly exclusive, judgmental and nationalistic strain of Christianity."

This is the liberal view of being non-judgmental. I love the hypocrisy!! Waters starts off describing how magnanimous he is going to be out of respect for the deceased and then starts to rip into Senator Helms because he was mean to certain groups and misconstrued the teachings of Christ. If only we all had the insight that Waters has!!

Well my father taught me never to speak ill of stupid hypocrites who want to explain to me how misguided we all are on the major issues of the day - so in my most non-judgmental way I will ask Mr. Waters to have the courage to own up to the fact that you couldn't resist taking a few last potshots at Jesse Helms to demonstrate your witty repartee (especially your closing line).

One more thing - Waters has a quote that "Helms saw atheism, socialism and liberalism "infecting" his Christian nation." Obviously this nation is mainly Judeo-Christian but guess what - Helms had that right!!

OS

Yes Virginia, there is a Right to Bear Arms

I wrote back in March about the Supreme Court taking up the issue of the Second Amendment. I admittedly was somewhat optimistic given the current make up of the court. Well I am happy to report that the Supreme Court goes this one right.

In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER the Court decided that the District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Nice!!!

The ruling actually went further by noting that the District of Columbia's prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense violates the 2nd Amendment as well.

This is not to say that there can't be reasonable gun laws - there can. What this does say though is that there is a true right to bear arms and we don't have to be part of a militia or any other nonsense that the Left throws out. We Americans have a right also for self defense and my general feeling (to quote John Lott) is More Guns, Less Crime.

The Court's opinion and dissent can be found here.

Now if only the Court could get decide that child rape is crime worthy of the death penalty.

OS

John McCain is not entitled to free speech

I am reading Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" and it is instructive to get the history lesson of the Left actually advocating what can only be called fascist solutions to many of the issues that the United States has dealt with since Woodrow Wilson and WW I and carried through to present day.

Anyway, I saw this article when I was reading Yahoo News and was specifically reading the local news section for Lexington, Bedford and Concord. The local news website for towns in this area has been renamed "Wicked Local" and admittedly I don't "get" the nature of the name. Wicked Local? This isn't some stupid attempt by the web site authors to sound "hip" and appeal to the young? Not sure but I digress.

So the local news for Lexington has a story about John McCain's solution to breaking the US' dependence of foreign oil called "The Lexington Project" which apparently is irritating many of the locals of Lexington, Ma where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 4 to 1. John McCain has named the project "for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."Sounds good right? Does anyone not think we should cut the cord with respect to foreign oil - especially as it relates to our national security?

Well not the residents of Lexington. At the local Lexington news site a "consultant" who works in Lexington is quoted as saying:

“I don’t think he should be able to do that, I don’t see the correlation. It has nothing to do with Lexington.”

So let me get this straight - this person (a Chris Peaden) missed the correlation to the fight for independence and the fight we need to take to secure our national security and future by breaking our dependence on foreign oil. Secondly this person also notes that John McCain shouldn't "be able to do that" (assume that he means use the name "Lexington" in his energy policy).

I wonder how the same proposal by Obama would have been met by the residents of Lexington, MA? I can only surmise that it would be been an honor for the name of Lexington to be used in such a proposal by the leftist (liberal) candidate. But more importantly the quote that I used above also reveals an interesting fascist tendency (limit rights based on what they agree with as outlined in Goldberg's book). Now I have no idea what sort of political ideology the person quoted subscribes to. But I do find it interesting that John McCain isn't entitled to the 1st Amendment based on Chris Peaden's opinion. I assume it is because Mr. Peaden (I am assuming it is a male) does not support Mr. McCain but since when are the freedoms/rights as outlined by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution so fluid? Mr. McCain can call his energy policy whatever he wants bascially. It is instructive and revealing how some people so willingly would remove rights that are "god given" based on a personal disagreement.

Scary indeed. Let's hope Chris Peaden and his ilk never rise to political postions as who knows what right would be next on the chopping block based on their personal opinions.

I wonder what the residents of Lexington, Kentucky feel about the McCain choice of name for his energy policy?

OS

Checking in

Yes I know it has been awhile since I have posted. And so much to cover - most importantly Hillary effectively removing herself from the Democratic race for the presidential nomination, giving Obama the nod (predicted here - but I also thought Giuliani would take the nomination so you see how far that got me - 50% so far). Hillary will not be the VP pick as I believe the Dems want the Clintons to just go away.

Also in the news is Gay Marriage which of course has become legal in California. In reading the blogs and news today I am struck by how trite some of the supporting ideas for gay marriage is and in fact how devious the actual deconstruction of words everyone knew 10, 20 years ago are now open for re-interpretation.

For example - marriage used to mean a man and a woman uniting as one (whether or not it was religious or before God or not). Now it means whatever a state court wants it to mean. It could mean a man and a man, why not a man and a dog? Why not two men and a woman? Who am I to apply my own sensibilities to a word such as marriage.

Having something that was moral meant measuring it against some sort of metric and judging whether it was good or bad (an action, a attitude, etc.). What was moral or "good" could be applied to all of society as natural guardrails. Now what is moral is defined by individual choice and there are no great moral truths out in the world to know. Everything is relative.

Change used to mean a difference from the norm. Now it is a slogan used by an inexperienced candidate for President to gloss over his own inexperience in pursuing the highest office in the land and his complete lack of grasping the major political issues of our time. Change is now a dodge to basically avoid answering any real questions on specifics and instead obscure the real facts that we, as citizens, have a real crappy choice in November.

Back to Gay Marriage - one thing that really stinks is that this decision also forces adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities to deal with Gay Couples who want to adopt due to these charities accepting state and federal funds. Instead of having the protection to exercise religous beliefs, adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities have decided not to offer adoption services rather than compromise on their religous beliefs. While many see this as cruel, why should a church bend on some of its core beliefs just because a secular entity such as a court makes a decision that is in opposition to it? Why can't Catholic Charities be left alone to do the Lord's work (no pun intended) and let homosexual couples pursue adoption from other venues. Maggie Gallagher has a great article on this at Townhall.com here.

Another word that used to mean something that now has a different meaning - Freedom (religous and otherwise). Now it means what the Left allows it to mean (i.e. anything that the Left agrees with).

OS