Thursday, February 14, 2008

The election from hell
The US presidential race so far. LRC’s Steven LaTulippe’s got it sussed:
We are left with Barack Obama.
I thought about cynically changing my registration as for the first time in 30 years Pennsylvania matters in one of the contests, the Democrats’... to vote for him in April as the least of the evils. Then I remembered the result of voting that way in 2006 for Clinton fan-boy Joe Sestak who promised to have the soldiers home by the end of last year. Hello, surge. Add to that House Speaker Nancy ‘Can’t Say No to Israel and AIPAC’ Pelosi’s leadership (BTW she’s the country’s most powerful at least nominal Roman Catholic — the Pope and mainline Protestant leaders say this war is wrong!) and I said no.
On the surface, he seems like a nice enough guy. He has none of McCain’s psychological instability, and he doesn’t come off as a shrill ideologue like Hillary.
I agree more with local columnist Kia Gregory: she seems like she’s trying to sell you a timeshare.
But when I listen to his speeches, I come away without any clue about his plans or policies. His orations are short on substance and laden with vague banalities and marketing jingles.
The blessing of the heirs of Camelot (like him a media/publicity creation... people still fall for that?!) and the obvious allusion to MLK...
This celebrity adulation may be just harmless nostalgia but it doesn’t make Barack Obama presidential material.

Truth is, he is too inexperienced to be trusted with the power of the presidency, and he is far too vague about exactly what he will do if he takes office.

Perhaps if everything was going swimmingly, we could indulge in this sort of politics, but America finds herself in a situation that is more precarious than at any time since the Great Depression. We are losing two wars, our banking system is insolvent (thanks to the Fed’s reckless monetary policy) and our government is spiraling toward bankruptcy.

As for Hillary Clinton, I am stunned to disbelief that she has even gotten this far.

How is this woman getting any votes at all from a party whose members claim to be opposed to the war?

After all, Bush’s hideous bloodbath in Mesopotamia has the Clintons’ fingerprints all over it.

Hilary likes to brag that she gained valuable experience serving as her husband’s most trusted advisor.

OK... fair enough.

Would that be the same husband who slapped crippling sanctions on Iraq that killed over a quarter of a million Iraqi children? Would that be the same husband who bombed and strafed Iraq for eight long years, degrading its infrastructure and spreading death and misery in his wake? Would that be the same husband who signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, thus making regime change in Baghdad the official policy of the U.S. government?
Don’t forget bombing Belgrade on their Easter. Milosevic was supposed to be the Commie-Nazi root of all evil in that Wag the Dog-for-real scenario.

Those who’d been paying attention to PNAC knew better (9/11 Changed Everything™... sure) but along with being suckered on abortion some believed Bush’s minders in 2000 when they campaigned against all that.
And what about Hillary’s own actions concerning Iraq? In the Senate, she voted for the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and she enthusiastically supported the war in its early stages. And just like McCain, her current plans call for residual American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

So can someone please explain to me the twisted logic by which Hillary Clinton is an antiwar candidate?
Because She’s a Woman™. Like Oprah (who I think is keen on Obama but anyway). She even teared up a bit in New Hampshire. Please.
John McCain is on my verboten list for a simple reason: he’s crazy.

...alongside his warmongering, he has an explosive temper.

I harbor genuine sympathy for what Senator McCain endured as a POW. His suffering during those long years in captivity is beyond the imagination of the average person.

Sympathy for John McCain the man must not blind us to the policies of John McCain the candidate.

One would think that McCain’s experiences would have made him all the more skeptical of military misadventures.

Whatever the case, the last thing this country needs is to be dragooned into John McCain’s Kafkaesque psychodrama.
‘This the end, my friend... the horror.’
Despite the seriousness of our predicament, the way out is simple (though not easy). We need a leader who clearly grasps the fundamentals of market economics and who appreciates the basics of our republican form of government. We need a leader who will reduce our overseas commitments, balance our budget, and restore our constitutional liberties.

In short, America needs a president with a solid, rational plan based on fundamental principles.

Looking at the polls, it’s becoming apparent that the American people want none of this. A significant portion of our population still thirsts for imperial glory. Another healthy slice wants the government to serve as a giant teat in the sky, regardless of the financial consequences.

Very few, on the other hand, seem willing to take the hard path that an authentic American restoration would require.

So instead, it looks like our next president will be a deranged militarist, a shrill neo-Marxist, or a sloganeering lightweight steeped in cultish adulation.
As for the LP roster so far, again I like Steve Kubby (he likes Ron Paul and probably has the life experience to do the job) but I fear he’s a one-issue man (legalise drugs), Christine Smith believes all the right things but doesn’t seem qualified (she ran a music festival and wrote a book on John Denver’s spirituality: if everything was going swimmingly, we could indulge in this sort of politics) and George Phillies seems like a pill (he’s anti-Paul) but qualified (if he’s on the ballot and Paul’s not then maybe).

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment