PDA

View Full Version : Krauth on Why he's voting for McCain...


revefsreleets
10-27-2008, 09:31 AM
Some solid points here:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-krauthammer_25edi.State.Edition1.27d546c.html


Charles Krauthammer: Why I'm voting for McCain


12:00 PM CDT on Friday, October 24, 2008



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.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if Mr. McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders him unfit for office. This man has demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and he has steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Mr. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating Mr. McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed Mr. McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months, Democrats insisted that Mr. McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
Mr. McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Mr. Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, Mr. McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Mr. Obama's most egregious association with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for Mr. McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the U.S. Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
Charles Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com (letters@charleskrauthammer.com).
div#article_tools_bottom a{ font-size:9px;}

HometownGal
10-27-2008, 09:58 AM
WOW. Very well stated. :thumbsup:

I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.


A-freakin'MEN! :applaudit::hatsoff:

Leftoverhard
10-27-2008, 11:29 AM
Charles Krauthammer - The guy who called George W's second inaugural address "revolutionary" and compared W to JFK. Guess who wrote the speech?

Vis
10-27-2008, 11:34 AM
Wow, a Republican actually endorsing McCain. Good find, rev

MACH1
10-27-2008, 12:24 PM
Wow, a Republican actually endorsing McCain. Good find, rev

As opposed to a terrorist's endorsement. Bill Ayers

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-27-2008, 12:30 PM
Charles Krauthammer - The guy who called George W's second inaugural address "revolutionary" and compared W to JFK. Guess who wrote the speech?

Why are you so filled with "facts" about why noone should support McClain...yet devoid of facts as to what Obama has achieved that would warrant support?

GBMelBlount
10-27-2008, 12:37 PM
As opposed to a terrorist's endorsement. Bill Ayers


Speaking of terrorists, I haven't heard of a single terrorist, terrorist state, or terrorist dictator who supports McCain. Obviously McCain lacks diplomacy with harmless little baby lambs. I'm concerned.

Leftoverhard
10-27-2008, 01:05 PM
Why are you so filled with "facts" about why noone should support McClain...yet devoid of facts as to what Obama has achieved that would warrant support?

Just staying on topic. :wave:

As opposed to a terrorist's endorsement. Bill Ayers

Bill Ayers endorsed Obama? Link?

revefsreleets
10-27-2008, 01:11 PM
There are plenty of Republicans who jumped ship, so, yeah, there's some relevance to this article.

Why hate? Why not post some responses to the article itself instead of the ad hominem attacks?

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-27-2008, 01:14 PM
Just staying on topic. :wave:

Oh by all means....open ANOTHER political thread telling us all what Obama has done to convince you he is ready for the presidency....the list of his achievements should be interesting....and one that we all truly DO want to hear about.

Personally I am waiting with baited breath!!!:thumbsup:

MACH1
10-27-2008, 02:40 PM
Speaking of terrorists, I haven't heard of a single terrorist, terrorist state, or terrorist dictator who supports McCain. Obviously McCain lacks diplomacy with harmless little baby lambs. I'm concerned.

Iran endorses Obama....Hamas also supports Obama.... Islamic Indonesia supports Obama....Hezbollah supports Obama :coffee:

augustashark
10-27-2008, 11:58 PM
endorsed[/I] Obama? Link?

Listen maam, do you really need a link? Do you really want to seem that uninformed. I've been reading your posts all around here and I think you are smart enough to know this. Please don't let me down!:thumbsup:

Leftoverhard
10-28-2008, 10:53 AM
Listen maam, do you really need a link? Do you really want to seem that uninformed. I've been reading your posts all around here and I think you are smart enough to know this. Please don't let me down!:thumbsup:

Are you talking to me? I'm no mam dude. Obviously, Ayers has not endorsed Obama. Sarcasm understood loud and clear but it seems you glossed over the whole Obama/Ayers "connection." When i say "link please", I mean it. It's a myth. You may wanna try reading the entire story, not just the headline. Soon you'll be calling Fox news the liberal media.

augustashark
10-29-2008, 02:09 AM
Are you talking to me? I'm no mam dude. Obviously, Ayers has not endorsed Obama. Sarcasm understood loud and clear but it seems you glossed over the whole Obama/Ayers "connection." When i say "link please", I mean it. It's a myth. You may wanna try reading the entire story, not just the headline. Soon you'll be calling Fox news the liberal media.

Question,

Who do you think Ayers will vote for?

























































Thats what I thought!:toofunny:

Leftoverhard
10-29-2008, 10:28 AM
Question,

Who do you think Ayers will vote for?

Thats what I thought!:toofunny:

I must have missed something. Endorsing is just a little bit different than voting. :noidea:

augustashark
10-29-2008, 10:12 PM
By voting for someone are'nt you saying that you endorse that person? Even my 6th grade education can see that.

SunshineMan21
10-30-2008, 08:05 PM
Well, it seems people really want to stay on topic with the article, so here goes--a point by point refutation of Krauthammer.

"First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. "

Has anyone heard of a man named George McGovern? No? How about John Kerry? Or Al Gore? Because all of them are at least as liberal as Barack Obama. Obama took heat in the primaries for refusing to mandate universal health care, and his tax proposal would return tax levels similar to those under Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton--you know, when the economy was good. Obama's plan of middle-class tax cuts will probably save almost everyone on this board more money than McCain's welfare for the mega-wealthy.

And experience? I wonder how many years Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, ad Teddy Rooseveldt should hve served in the Senate. Over the course of American history, length of involvement in the federal government is among the worst predictors of how effective a president a man becomes.

It's worth noting that I think criticizing Palin's "lack of experience" is equally idiotic. My problem with Palin is not that she hasn't gathered dust in Washington for years, it's that she doesn't seem to have a clue about major issues facing the country. Her blend of profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilteriness and ignorance reminds me of a certain incumbent president.

"The "erratic" temperament issue, for example."

I agree . . . while Obama may be better at appearing 'presidential' than the somewhat cranky McCain, this is not why I'm voting for him. In my mind, there are many reasons to vote for Obama. Some have to do with policy differences between the two candidates, and some have to do with the competence and inspiration of Obama's life and message.

None of them have to do with inadequacies in McCain's character or temperment,

"Mr. McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Mr. Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers."

This is idiocy. Obama's association with William Ayers is not exactly what one would call intense. Obama was once on an education council with Ayers (so obviously, as the neocon logic goes, every member of the council is a terrorist sympathizer). Earlier in Obama's career, one of his fundraisers was held in Ayers' house--Obama did not know at the time exactly who Ayers was, as you tend not to suspect people of being past wanna-be terrorists unless you dig up their FBI files.

I'm not sure exactly how this condemns Obama, but it has become the mantra of people (including posts I see on this board) who don't seem to have any substantive way to criticize Obama or support McCain.

I'm sure KKK leaders are voting for McCain. Does it make me think less of McCain that some of the people who support him are terrorists as well? No. It doesn't. McCain, like Obama, makes it clear that he rejects the extremist positions of one evil man. Ayers should no more be used to condemn Obama than a KKK leader should be used to condemn McCain.

"Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, Mr. McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Mr. Obama's most egregious association with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed."

That's because, as previously mentioned, McCain is a good man. Perhaps Krauthammer could take a cue.

The only campaigning I can recall that significantly disturbed me was Palin lying about her record on the "Bridge to Nowhere."


I'll end with two points. First, a link to my foreign policy argument against McCain can be found here:
http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=28440&page=2


Second, Krauthammer never mentions the root causes of the economic crisis in his article, which to me is one of the main reasons to vote against McCain. Even Alan Greenspan has now admit that his Reagonomics were wrong, that markets don't always automatically correct themselves. Economically, the extreme supply-side economics of Bush have been disasterous, and have created the current crisis.

What other economic plans does McCain offer? People deride Obama as "Socialist" (a ridiculous claim, but one I'm not going to touch here) but in truth Bush has presided over one of the biggest growths of government in the history of the world.

The difference is who the social spending is going toward. A vote for McCain is a vote for poor men's tax dollars subsidizing the rich, just as RNC donors' dollars have subsidized Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe. She's a regular Joe, alright.

If you'd like to respond to this, please indicate what part of my argument you have a problem with.

And if anyone responds "like omg obama is a communist terrorist arab," then don't expect a reply.

MACH1
10-30-2008, 08:32 PM
Were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt wanting to "Spread the Wealth" With Socialist Ideas?

revefsreleets
10-30-2008, 08:50 PM
I think you are a ringer, sunshine, but that in no way invalidates your post.

I'll answer it in earnest when I get a chance...I'm a little discombobulated right now...

SunshineMan21
10-30-2008, 11:33 PM
Were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt wanting to "Spread the Wealth" With Socialist Ideas?

What exactly do you think the $700 Billiob bailout is?

If it's Socialist to have a progressive tax policy, every president since the enactment of the income tax has been Socialist.

If you want to actually see a Socialist economic plan, then go check out Denmark. Obama is not remotely Socialist . . . no major candidate for the U.S. presidency since Eugene Debs has been.

MACH1
10-31-2008, 12:17 AM
Obama's about as close as it gets. Take from the "rich", give to the lazy.

RunWillieRun
10-31-2008, 11:36 AM
The difference is who the social spending is going toward. A vote for McCain is a vote for poor men's tax dollars subsidizing the rich, just as RNC donors' dollars have subsidized Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe. She's a regular Joe, alright.



Where to start with this gem of a paragraph.

1. You do realize that 40% of the population pays no income tax, right?

2. You also realize that EVERYBODY who pays income taxes gets a tax break under McCain, right?

3. There is a difference between 'social spending' and cutting a check (funded by the wealthy) to the bottom 40% who pay no income tax. That's DIRECT redistribution. The only thing that does is create a large population of people dependent on the government...which is great for the party responsible for sending out the checks.

4. Are you seriously worried about her wardrobe? Do you think appearence is not important in a presidential race, especially for a woman? Do you knowthat she is going to donate those clothes to charity! How horrible of the McCain campaign to spend money and support those evil corporations. They should have saved that money and gave it directly to the government, because afterall, its the patrotic thing to do! Or maybe even better, he could have bought an infomercial about how horrible life in America is now.

SunshineMan21
10-31-2008, 03:35 PM
First of all, the tax issue is one on which the McCain camp has made a habit of consistently distorting the candidates' positions. This is because there's an economic argument for McCain's Reagonomics, supply-side position, but it's not one that sounds pretty.

Under the Obama tax proposal, if you make less than $250,000 a year, which the vast majority of people do, your taxes don't go up. If you make less than $200,000, Obama gives you a tax break and Obama's plan will actually benefit you more than McCain's because McCain adds a tax on health care benefits that has never before existed.

The fundamental assumption of extreme neoliberal, supply-side economics is that rich people always deserve to be rich, and poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor.

Do you agree with that? Because from a sociological standpoint, it's absolutely ridiculous. And if you agree with that, we shouldn't have programs like Head Start, Food Stamps, etc . . . which means kids are gonna starve.

And on Sarah Palin's wardrobe . . . I personally don't care. But I remember the media uproar over John Kerry's $60 haircut and how it made him an "elitist" (for the record, I'm not a huge John Kerry fan).

The people who actually care, and who have often been privately voicing their displeasure, are the people who cut checks to the RNC because it was something they believed in. How would you feel knowing that your money went to buy Sarah Palin's daughters designer clothes?

MACH1
10-31-2008, 04:08 PM
McCain camp has made a habit of consistently distorting the candidates' positions.

And Obama's been nothing but honest and truthful. :rolleyes:

if you make less than $250,000 a year, which the vast majority of people do

Thats what he said at the beginning, he said in an interview a couple of days ago he had to adjust it to $200.000. Then Biden said in his interview it was $150,000.
Now why should anybody believe Obama. IF he wins he'll probably drop that down $50,000.

supply-side economics is that rich people always deserve to be rich, and poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor.

Rich people have EARNED their money unless inherited or what not. I'm not for giving my hard earned money away to people who are too damn lazy(poor) to get a job and contribute to society.
I'm not rich nor am I poor, but I'm not about to give it away to people who refuse to earn their way in life.

RunWillieRun
10-31-2008, 04:21 PM
First of all, the tax issue is one on which the McCain camp has made a habit of consistently distorting the candidates' positions. This is because there's an economic argument for McCain's Reagonomics, supply-side position, but it's not one that sounds pretty.

Under the Obama tax proposal, if you make less than $250,000 a year, which the vast majority of people do, your taxes don't go up. If you make less than $200,000, Obama gives you a tax break and Obama's plan will actually benefit you more than McCain's because McCain adds a tax on health care benefits that has never before existed.

The fundamental assumption of extreme neoliberal, supply-side economics is that rich people always deserve to be rich, and poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor.

Do you agree with that? Because from a sociological standpoint, it's absolutely ridiculous. And if you agree with that, we shouldn't have programs like Head Start, Food Stamps, etc . . . which means kids are gonna starve.

And on Sarah Palin's wardrobe . . . I personally don't care. But I remember the media uproar over John Kerry's $60 haircut and how it made him an "elitist" (for the record, I'm not a huge John Kerry fan).

The people who actually care, and who have often been privately voicing their displeasure, are the people who cut checks to the RNC because it was something they believed in. How would you feel knowing that your money went to buy Sarah Palin's daughters designer clothes?


Okay, I'll bite. Why did Biden use the figure $150,000 the other day and Gov. Bill Richardson use the figure $120,000 in an interview yesterday in regards to those that won't have their taxes go up?

I believe that when you give out income tax payer funded checks directly to people who don't pay any income tax you are creating a large population of people dependent on government. Where is the incentive to work?

If I donated to McCain (which I didn't), I would leave it up to them to use it as they see fit to best win the election. What does the McCain camp have to benefit from purchasing Palin things that it doesn't think will help their ticket win the election? Maybe if McCain would have opted out of public financing those evil corporations and shady donors (coughobamacough) could have financed Palin's wardrobe.

revefsreleets
11-01-2008, 04:24 PM
Well, it seems people really want to stay on topic with the article, so here goes--a point by point refutation of Krauthammer.

"First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. "

Has anyone heard of a man named George McGovern? No? How about John Kerry? Or Al Gore? Because all of them are at least as liberal as Barack Obama. Obama took heat in the primaries for refusing to mandate universal health care, and his tax proposal would return tax levels similar to those under Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton--you know, when the economy was good. Obama's plan of middle-class tax cuts will probably save almost everyone on this board more money than McCain's welfare for the mega-wealthy.

And experience? I wonder how many years Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, ad Teddy Rooseveldt should hve served in the Senate. Over the course of American history, length of involvement in the federal government is among the worst predictors of how effective a president a man becomes.

It's worth noting that I think criticizing Palin's "lack of experience" is equally idiotic. My problem with Palin is not that she hasn't gathered dust in Washington for years, it's that she doesn't seem to have a clue about major issues facing the country. Her blend of profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilteriness and ignorance reminds me of a certain incumbent president.

"The "erratic" temperament issue, for example."

I agree . . . while Obama may be better at appearing 'presidential' than the somewhat cranky McCain, this is not why I'm voting for him. In my mind, there are many reasons to vote for Obama. Some have to do with policy differences between the two candidates, and some have to do with the competence and inspiration of Obama's life and message.

None of them have to do with inadequacies in McCain's character or temperment,

"Mr. McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Mr. Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers."

This is idiocy. Obama's association with William Ayers is not exactly what one would call intense. Obama was once on an education council with Ayers (so obviously, as the neocon logic goes, every member of the council is a terrorist sympathizer). Earlier in Obama's career, one of his fundraisers was held in Ayers' house--Obama did not know at the time exactly who Ayers was, as you tend not to suspect people of being past wanna-be terrorists unless you dig up their FBI files.

I'm not sure exactly how this condemns Obama, but it has become the mantra of people (including posts I see on this board) who don't seem to have any substantive way to criticize Obama or support McCain.

I'm sure KKK leaders are voting for McCain. Does it make me think less of McCain that some of the people who support him are terrorists as well? No. It doesn't. McCain, like Obama, makes it clear that he rejects the extremist positions of one evil man. Ayers should no more be used to condemn Obama than a KKK leader should be used to condemn McCain.

"Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, Mr. McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Mr. Obama's most egregious association – with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed."

That's because, as previously mentioned, McCain is a good man. Perhaps Krauthammer could take a cue.

The only campaigning I can recall that significantly disturbed me was Palin lying about her record on the "Bridge to Nowhere."


I'll end with two points. First, a link to my foreign policy argument against McCain can be found here:
http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=28440&page=2


Second, Krauthammer never mentions the root causes of the economic crisis in his article, which to me is one of the main reasons to vote against McCain. Even Alan Greenspan has now admit that his Reagonomics were wrong, that markets don't always automatically correct themselves. Economically, the extreme supply-side economics of Bush have been disasterous, and have created the current crisis.

What other economic plans does McCain offer? People deride Obama as "Socialist" (a ridiculous claim, but one I'm not going to touch here) but in truth Bush has presided over one of the biggest growths of government in the history of the world.

The difference is who the social spending is going toward. A vote for McCain is a vote for poor men's tax dollars subsidizing the rich, just as RNC donors' dollars have subsidized Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe. She's a regular Joe, alright.

If you'd like to respond to this, please indicate what part of my argument you have a problem with.

And if anyone responds "like omg obama is a communist terrorist arab," then don't expect a reply.



A) McGovern maybe more liberal…maybe. Obama is in his own league. He’s shifted right under pressure from his own party in order to cast a wider net, but that’s not a true representation of his real views. The FACT that Obama has had so many policy/platform changes in the last couple months leads me to believe that his stated positions right now will have little reflection on his ACTUAL positions once elected.

B) Tax cuts are part of supply-side economics as we now know it in the US. Obama giving tax breaks to anyone is just as irresponsible as the GOP doing it (I mean if you're going to go there, lets go there). He actually is erring in this by giving tax breaks when things are BAD. That’s counter-intuitive to your own arguments. You can’t just cherry pick which parts of economic positions benefit your candidate and ignore the others that don’t fit.

C) Experience is a red herring. But the Democrats again attempt to have it both ways in this argument, saying that Obama’s inexperience is good, but Palin’s is bad. It stretches credulity…

D) Ayer’s is relevant in that this association, no matter how loose, would be enough to keep him from getting a job at the TSA, FBI or CIA. But as someone else already pointed out, Clinton lowered the bar on this one, so it probably does become another non-issue.

E) It’s patently false and wrong to tie McCain’s foreign policy into Bush’s. This is the left once again calling the kettle black. McCain has repeatedly taken different stances on foreign policy issues from W, and I absolutely guarantee you that had McCain been president instead of GWB, the Iraq/Afghan situation would have been handled 1000X more adeptly.

F) McCain already offered one solid plan that is one more than I’ve seen from Obama: Spending freeze. That sends a shutter through the power corridors of DC, though. Also, penalizing big companies WILL have trickle down effect. Why would any company stay in this country when their already highest corporate tax rate in the World INCREASE? Why not move to China or Peru or wherever? How is taxing big business going to create all these jobs Obama keeps going on and on about. Where are these jobs coming from? From the businesses that he's going to penalize again, just because they are in business? Is he going to create millions of new jobs in the alternative fuel business?

I could go on and on, but this is just broad strokes. Your final sentence was interesting, as if all your logic and arguments were infallible, and there could be no reasonable retort to your absolute complete knowledge of all things political.