I made the mistake of watching my very first presidential debate last night. It was essentially a two-man show as Son of Cain and Romney went at each other, with Mike Huckabee whining all night about his lack of airtime, and Ron Paul talking over most commoners' heads about monetary policy. I'm not saying Paul's analysis about monetary policy was wrong, but his approach is unfortunately not made for the soundbite style of a televised debate.
My biggest impression of the debate was seeing for the first time what a smarmy, smug asshole Son of Cain can be. His fecal-eating grins and shakes of the head as Romney spoke reminded me of the infantile huffing and puffing that Al Gore engaged in during his debates with George W. Bush eight years ago. I have no great love for that slick used-car salesmanesque Romney either, but Son of Cain was simply deplorable. I have come to the conclusion that if someone put a gun to my head and made me choose between Son of Cain or Mitt Romney, I would choose Romney.
I read a great post tonight from a blog called Polipundit, in which Son of Cain's non-conservative bonafides were listed in a most informative and succinct way. Polipundit lays out why I could never vote for Son of Cain, no matter which Democrat runs against him:
1. They say God put Republicans on earth to cut taxes. But John McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts.Of the items on that list, #2 and #8 concern me the most. I have talked about both of those positions of his in the past, and I have more to say about Son of Cain's support of amnesty for illegal aliens. I found the following video on YouTube that gives a great soundbite rundown of the views of Juan Hernandez, the "Hispanic Outreach Director" for Son of Cain's campaign. Son of Cain says he has listened to the American people who rejected his Shamnesty bill and has strengthened his resolve to "secure the border". Oh really? Let's hear what Dr. Juan has to say about that "border":
2. McCain was the biggest supporter, and co-sponsor, of McCain-Feingold, the greatest assault on free speech in at least three decades.
3. McCain backs all kinds of anti-gun legislation.
4. McCain attempted to give terrorists at Gitmo various “rights.”
5. McCain supports various intrusive government regulations to stop “global warming.”
6. McCain insulted various Christian leaders during the 2000 campaign.
7. McCain called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth “dishonest and dishonorable” because they dared question what John Kerry had done in Vietnam.
8. McCain championed, sponsored, and repeatedly attempted to ram through a bill to amnesty 20 million illegal aliens, and import tens of millions of poor, low-skilled, under-educated, non-English-speaking Third Worlders.
If Mitt Romney is a “full-spectrum conservative,” McCain is a full-spectrum anti-conservative.
If McCain is selected as the Republican party’s nominee, I will not be able to vote for him, any more than I could vote for Hillary Clinton. I will leave my vote blank at the top of the ticket, or find a third party candidate to support.
As I watch this guy speak, I think of the famous quote that says, "When fascism comes... it will come with a smile on its face."
Good Day to You, Sir
21 comments:
I know I dont get a vote, but if I were American, your list would act very well as a list of reasons I *would* vote for him!
Did you see the video of Ann Coulter saying she would vote for Hillary if McCain was the nominee?
Careful what you brag about, donalbain. According to you, this means you support confiscating more of the money that people earn, prohibiting people from defending themselves from criminals, forcibly stopping people from exercising their freedom of political speech, giving amnesty to people who cut ahead in line and entered the U.S. illegally, making people more poor in an attempt to combat an environmental issue that people are not causing...
You're British right? If so, thank God you don't have the right to vote in our elections. The problem is that there are too many Americans who think as you do who *can* vote in our elections.
Now that your candidate and my candidate are gone, and I might have considered Bill Richardson, it comes down to that old "lesser of two evils" thing again. What have we done to deserve that?
This whole election is depressing me beyond belief. No one I like is left and McCain just gives me hives.
Here is a question for the presidential candidates that I bet NEA does not ask: Why didn't you send your child(ren) to local public schools?
If I could, I would cast my ballot in a box entitled: NONE OF THE ABOVE. I couldn't vote for any of the candidates for President back when George II got in again......Looks like it might be that way again. Sad for America, that we can't get leaders with integrety, who are honest and in it for the people.
I am in favour of certain services being provided by the government, which yes, includes taxes being paid.
I am in favour of regulating political funding and donations because it cuts down on the influence held by the rich and by corporations over the system.
I happen to agree with the IPCC, and the scientific academies of the G8 nations when they say that carbon emmissions are a cause of climate change and that this change will adversely affect the lives of millions of people.
And, I do NOT think it is a problem that people who think differently are allowed to vote in elections
No donalbain,
You are in favor of confiscating more of the money that I earn and handing it over to someone who didn't earn it.
You are in favor of stopping me from running a t.v. or radio ad that mentions the name of a candidate when we get within 60 days of an election.
You are in favor of stopping me from arming myself in order to protect myself, my family, or any other innocent person being victimized by a criminal.
You are in favor of radically changing our way of life in order to appease your mother earth god, when there is not even a consensus about human impact on global warming (try as you might to insist that there is consensus). Your precious IPCC is as full of capitalism-hating politicians as it is grant-grubbing scientists.
Dont tell me my own opinion. I know what my opinion is. You are a liar. Plain and simple.
I know the truth hurts; it's just something you are going to have to live with.
Your problem is that, like a typical leftist, you are all about warm and fuzzy intentions. I, on the other hand, am about results. And the results of your intentions are what I have described. Obviously, you don't like to have reality smack you upside the head, but again, like a typical leftist, reality isn't exactly your strong suit, now is it?
OK..
Lets see.. the first lie was saying that I wanted to "appease ... earth mother god", despite the fact that my motivations have nothing to do with ANY god. They have to do with EXACTLY what I typed, namely the likely consequence of climate change on millions of HUMAN BEINGS.
The second lie was claiming the first lie was truth.
Two lies in a row do not constitute a "reality smack".
Oh, so you *don't* want people in the to die in order to stop "mother" earth from warming up?
What do you think your attack on prosperity and progress is going to do these human beings you claim to care so much about? And worse, you are doing it all in order to stop a rise in temperature upon which we humans have little to no impact.
It seems to me that it is very likely that human beings DO cause climate change. You disagree. However, that seems to make you think that it is acceptabel to actually LIE about what I believe. Sorry, but that does not make for an interesting conversation in my opinion. If you want to address the points HONESTLY, I would be interested in discussing it with you.
How did I lie? You believe that humans are responsible for global warming. Your wish to stop anthropogenic global warming is to regulate our behavior by making us produce less carbon. The only way to do this is to stop or curb our activity that produces that carbon. This will lead to a reduced quality of life and more poverty, and it is this which causes an increase in human death.
Again, donalbain: intentions versus results. I'm sure you love your fellow human being, but that doesn't mean much when what you want to do to "help" your fellow human beings ends up killing more of them.
I have told you. You said that I wished to appease an earth mother god. That is a lie. You have now been corrected three times and I have lost interest in this "conversation"
When you value the earth more than you do the human race, then what else do you call it?
Yeah, I picked up on the "mc" and "son of cain" business a few years back when son of cain was running 8 yrs. ago. He was very close to getting a nomination then and I told my buds at the time that he might be our next prez. I can't in good conscience vote for this guy. Even if his name is simply a "sign of the times" and nothing more, he won't get any help from me. BTW, the sons of cain in scripture are known as "kenites", and Cain was not Adam's son. Notice he wasn't listed in the genealogy and not because he murdered his half-brother in the womb either. The sons of cain might look like us but they are definitely a different breed.
No... seriously?
You actually base your political views, even in part, on his NAME? And not just that because his name suggests he is somehow a different species??
And you vote?
You are such a tool. Uh, yeah Donalbain, the reason we don't like John McCain is because of the biblical implications of his surname.
Making fun of his name is the least I can do as I watch the Democrats giggle over the name "Mitt".
You believe humans cause global warming? And you vote?
Well, there it is. The personal insults. I was actually referring to the comment above mine. The one where somebody actually DID go on about his name and make reference to a rather strange reading of the Bible where in the "sons of Cain" are "a different breed".
Sorry if responding to things people write confuses you (I assume it must, since you have a habit of responding to things that I never wrote) but that is just how written communication works.
And yes, I happen to think that pumping huge amounts of CO2 (a selectively transparent gas) into the atmosphere will cause a change in the amount of radiation that escapes from the earth into space, thus leading to an increase in temperature of the earth. Many scientists who have looked at the evidence agree with that conclusion as well. You, however disagree. That is fine. I will not descend into name calling over the issue. Nor will I resort to lying about what you believe, or your motivations, since I believe that people of good conscience can have roughly similar motivations while disagreeing on the best methods to achieve their aims. I have no doubt, for example, that you want policies that will help both America and people in other parts of the world, just as I do. However, as I think that anthropogenic climate change is a real and dangerous issue, I favour policies that will combat that, while you think it is not a real and serious issue and so will favour other policies.
I will however, find it amusing when people post a comments such as the one by badgirl, which is quite frankly a hilarious mix of idiocy and bad theology. You, on the other hand have now lied and descended to personal insults. If one of the purposes of political discourse is to persaude people who disagree with you to consider your point of view, then your technique is not going to be effective. As soon as you start throwing around the insults, then more often that not, the person you are talking with will stop listening and you wil have missed your chance.
Son of Cain has flip-flopped on all eight of the above enumerated issues so many times as to make any policy statement now as hollow as a bell.
Post a Comment