Friday, August 29, 2008

While watching PBS

Of course, as expected, Senator John McCain picked his running mate right after the Democratic National Convention. It was intended, so the news media declared that his Veep pick would steal the thunder from Senator Obama. Really? I probably had more fun to day questioning McCain's particular wisdom in picking a complete unknown with a history that could prove a disaster. So let me take stock of the aftermath of the Dem convention and the prelude to the GOP Convention. While watching a bit of "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" I noted the fair and balanced approach "The News Hour" provided to Dem and GOP surrogates, apologists, what ever. The GOP surrogate who got trotted out to hit shows like "The News Hour" sounded exactly like he hadn't actually listened to Obama's speech before passing judgment, and in the process, misrepresenting what Obama said. And was not challenged on any front by the "fair" people at "The News Hour." What Obama said, the Republicans expect you to pick yourself up by the bootstraps even when you have no bootstraps. You are on your own. The surrogate blather was not something that I can directly quote but the gist would be, that Obama sends a mixed message of expecting people to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and yet gvt will still take care of them. No, actually Obama did not say that.

Mark Shields and David Brooks, Mark Shields becomes the quintessential liberal here in trying to find a silver lining in a cloud of McCain's own making. That having Gov. Palin on board she will gain the Hillary vote. However, on CNN, the opposite happens to be the fact. David Brooks carping that Obama has turned to old partisan playbooks. If Obama had not come off as tough in his acceptance speech, if he had not chosen to whup McCain's butt, David Brooks would have turned on a dime and chastised him for wanting everything sunny with rainbows and flowers. Which definitely would suggest that there are those in the news media who'd never be satisfied with anything that Obama said or did.

After the initial round of Sheilds and Brooks, were those who commented on Obama pushing an agenda without discussing how it would be paid for. Certainly a legitimate question, but again no challenge, how would McCain pay for his particularly ambitious agendas? A matter of put Obama down without significantly building McCain up. Or of how Obama's speech disappointed. Well, I am sure when I write these blog posts that there are different ways in which I could express myself, but I am going to write from the heart. From what I could tell, Obama spoke from the heart. And that is exactly why he has managed to captivate large audiences everywhere. And by the way, no candidate for higher office is going to be long on specifics until they actually attain the office and have a full appreciation of what's ahead of them. Realistically, they can only provide broad outlines of a general plan. But now, there is shrill screaming that because Obama can only do that, lay out the broad outlines of a general plan that he is "all talk." There is nothing there. On the other hand, what McCain lays out as to a general plan is also highly unrealistic. Given the financial debt and how much we are in hock to foreign and not so friendly gvts. Could McCain any more readily pay for his tax cuts or a war in Iraq, or Iran? What would in reality be sacrificed? While there was a whining lady on "The News Hour" who complained about the high foreclosure rates in Florida and how Obama had not addressed them... But, has McCain addressed them so significantly that would make the lady any more ready to vote for him? From Obama's quoting McCain about what he assumed was "middle class," anyone who made less than 5 million a year. Huh, then I would guess that where my income stands at best at 12,000 a year with my little business and current job, I am middle class. Isn't that heartening. McCain is married to a rich heiress, he doesn't have to worry about a home foreclosure in the foreseeable future. He also has the perks that come from having been in Congress, no the fellow is well set up, he doesn't have to worry about a thing. So, at no time did the whiner and the detractor take stock of anything like this. McCain has no more "executive experience" than does Obama. And he has picked as a Veep someone with a very thin resume on executive experience.

This is not a matter of "hate Palin and McCain" as some whiners on Huckleberries online proclaimed. There is a very serious issue here and one that any reasoning Republican should actually be prepared to confront and not try to explain away or dismiss. Palin is a woman, Palin is very attractive. And while Palin has some executive experience as Mayor and Governor, she was never a heart beat away of having to assume the monumental task of trying to run a country that according to McCain (echoing GW) is fundementally sound economically, it isn't. And trying to carry on an agenda that McCain would have set in motion should he be president, one that would cost money that we no longer have. Trying to do so if McCain was actually no longer able to assume the duties of President. And given McCain's health problems, at any time that he became president, he might not be able to assume those duties. McCain had better picks. And if there were folks that would have to hold their noses at such picks (reference Adam's blog linked to at HBO.)
Well then, on the "stupid ratio" that Adam had given it, then there were better people McCain could have run with and having far more experience and certainly better prepared to take over the reins if McCain keeled over. But as seen later on Bill Moyer's Journal, the Editor of "The Nation" regarded McCain's pick of Palin as ...cynical. That, even though I am a conservative (read moderate and cautious) Republican, says it all. McCain wants to sew up both the women and Evangelical vote. Even though his own track record and that of Palin's is contrary to what women would now deem the most important.

And of course, remniscient of the "I feel your pain" that the GOP once derided in Bill Clinton, she is a working Mom, she knows exactly what working parents go through. Uh huh. She is Governor, with a special needs infant, she also has something as Governor that working parents in general don't, the special perks and priviledges that come with being a politician. She has no idea, from such an elevated position, what working parents go through. Her job takes care of both her and the Downs Syndrome Baby, Trig. But given the track record of the GOP, working families struggle more with special needs kids. So, I highly doubt that Palin feels their pain. Bryan Fischer then, being "inspired" by such a choice of GOP Veep, who lauds the fact that Palin would not abort a Downs Syndrome Baby. Forgets one thing, that society is still reluctant to lend a helping hand to the handicapped. If Palin were a single mother and without options, not having a federal handout to take care of a child who would be crippled at birth, would she in fact have regarded abortion as not an option? The fact that she had her financial cards in order, says a great deal about how it would be easier to bear such a child because she would not suffer financially for doing so. Not to say that this would be true of any other woman. Esp. any other woman who didn't happen to be fairly wealthy and or a politician besides.