by Kevin ~ September 7, 2008
I watched the McCain RNC acceptance speech on YouTube. It was a masterful and moving speech. McCain has my vote for distinguished American of the year. It was a moving speech and it cast somewhat of a spell over me. But next morning the spell dissipated. This is what is wrong with McCain as President.
- McCain is too conservative, too far right on social issues I care about
- McCain (according to his book) makes decisions faster than others, sometimes makes mistakes and is willing to live with the consequences. (That is, he’s impulsive.) That’s fine for a Senator, but when a President makes mistakes EVERYBODY has to live with the consequences. I would prefer someone more careful.
- I don’t know who wrote McCain’s speech (certainly not him), but McCain delivered it. In that speech he lied about Obama’s position on taxes (check out factcheck.org). So just like President Bush, he’s willing to lie and distort the facts for gain. Palin also said some intentionally misleading things about Obama.
- McCain lacks the honesty and integrity to come out and deal with the evils of the Bush Administration. In his acceptance speech, you wouldn’t know who the president even is. If McCain is unwilling to repudiate Bush, and willing to use the same campaign tactics, what are we to think? Certainly not that change is in the wind.
by Kevin ~ September 5, 2008
They say McCain is a “maverick”. What is a maverick?
One definition says: “someone who exhibits great independence in thought and action.” But it’s also
- An unbranded range animal.
- One who creates or uses unconventional and/or controversial ideas or practices.
Do we want someone with an unpredictable streak as the leader of the free world? It’s one thing to think out of the box; it’s entirely different to be independent of good advice or impulsive, or even unwilling to recognize the rule of law.
by Kevin ~ September 5, 2008
I watched Palin’s speech on YouTube. Parallels to George Bush come to mind. They both are from oil states with ties to the oil industry (both ideological and family). Their primary political experience comes from being state governors (Bush 4 years, Palin 2 plus mayoral experience). They both shamelessly pander to the far right of their party when running for office. They both seem to have little use for science whether it’s global warming denial or in Palin’s case the view that Creationism belongs in public schools (AP story).
The glee with which Palin delivered the line making fun of Barak Obama because of some stage props at the DNC tells me that she is right at home with the politics of spin that unfortunately characterizes the current Republican leadership. McCain/Palin show early warning signs of embracing the “permanent campaign” (Scott McClellan’s discussion) that was a major flaw in the of Bush administration.
by Kevin ~ August 31, 2008
I’ve been fascinated with the Batman character since I was a kid in the ’60s reading every issue of Batman and Detective Comics.
Batman is a special kind of super hero, one without magical powers or alien physiology. He relies on his own intelligence, athletic skill, and technology. Batman is man at his peak achievement. And Batman has secrets, and what kid isn’t fascinated by secrets?
Dark Knight is the successor to Batman Begins, continuing with the same story line and actors, distinct from the earlier starting with Batman and continuing with Batman and Robin and Batman Forever. Who is the better Joker: Jack Nicholson or Heath Ledger? I can’t choose; they are both very different, but equally complex. Both the first modern Batman movie and this latest series are faithful to the comic hero. Perhaps the earlier ones are focused a little more towards a younger audience, and the latter more cerebral. I liked them both.
I’ve also seen the Batman series from the 1940’s, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
by Kevin ~ August 31, 2008
Scooter Libby broke the law, was tried, convicted and sentenced. George Bush pardoned him and he avoided jail. Did Bush do this because Libby was secretly acting on orders from him, or the Vice President? Possibly, but the expressed reason was that Libby was a good person. George Bush seems to have this idea that some people are fundamentally good (and therefore they should not be punished when they break the law) and that some are fundamentally bad and should be punished whether they have been convicted of a crime or not (those persons being held in Guantamo and who knows where else).
Bush govern with his gut more than from law or facts or analysis. (See Scott McClellan’s book What Happened for more on this subject.) But the larger issue is that there are people like Bush who share this outlook. There are those who believe that the solution to most everything is for people to become “like us” or be shunned; these people we call “conservatives”. Then there are those people who beleive that the solution to most everything is for us to learn from people who are “not like us” and that we should embrace them; these people we call “liberals”.
I think this distinction explains why conservatives talk about law and order (imposed on others), but typically choose expedients when it comes to what they want to do. This is why liberals are typically “soft on crime” but impose a rabid political correctness on themselves.
