The Vices of Their Virtues

You compare Reagan to Churchill? What have you been smoking? Your article is weak and really uninformative much. It's your take on these guys. It's for lack of a better phrase, common wisdom. McCain is a hotdog. His pick of Palen was a jab at the world, crassly political, and totally at odds with his mantra of country first. He is a fighter jock, a trouble-maker, and a war-monger. Every foreign policy attitude he has can be related to Vietnam, a war Big John would still be fighting if he could. He would be disastrous for the country. If he croaked in office, Palen would be disaster compounded. Bush would look like a genius by comparison. Having said all that, because 65% of Americans are eaten up with dumb, it may be McCain, in which case, buckle your seat belt. SAM incoming.

I was disappointed, at the time, that so many American voters didn't see through the scam (even after previously authenticating the obvious fake "fat Bin Laden tape") of Bush's CIA "authenticating" a tape recording of bin Laden doing a campaign spot for George Bush (and it was FOR George Bush....even bin Laden himself, had he actually still been alive, would have clearly recognized how American voters would react to an apparent statement by America's most hated enemy, advocating a particular candidate or point of view before an American election).

And as the article notes: "Four years ago, in 2004, a videotape of a very-much-alive Osama bin Laden stymied John Kerry's bid by sending worried voters back to the seemingly tougher Republican ticket (despite the fact that the very same Republican ticket had been unsuccessfully searching for the very same bin Laden for more than three years)."

well

McCain was a hotheaded gambler and hazardeur all his life -- the terms Maverick or Hero are mere camouflage. His staff fears his violent outbursts, his unthinking impulsiveness got us Sarah Palin. Shooting first, and thinking later may be fun in cowboy movies, but it spells disaster in a national leader. I fail to see how voters could have preferred him over more qualified Republicans in the primaries, since he is dangerous and totally out of touch -- a sad remnant from the bad old days of the Cold War.

The world needs parrots too jose.

Mr. Obama plans to reform CIA. "Barack will fire anyone who was involved in the development of the AIDS virus." said Kwansi Mifune a spokesperson for the Obama campaign.

Ref. Give ME; Leave it to a "die hard" republican to be more concerned with what 2 men do in private with their privates, than a war. A war , by the way, that kills our children. Or is it ok to kill them after they turn 18, but wait, pro-life....anti-life? oh yeah, i get it...a fetus is so precious a womans rights should be thrown out, but an 18year old boy is garbage...got it, thanks!

In all seriousness, we can see that McCain is a shoot from the hip and ask questions later kind of guy. He would have made a good president 20-30 years ago. However, with all that is going on in the world today, we do not need an impulsive cowboy for president right now. His time has passed. There are a lot of storms coming and we need a calm steady hand who can inspire Americans to come together so that we can get through the hard times that are to come and move the country foward into the 21st century. It is time to put the cold war, failed trickle down voodoo economics, and devisive politics behind us. A guy who makes rash decisions and tends to gamble everything for little gain is just what the country does NOT need in these times. Last week's behavior by the two candidates sealed the deal for me and many others.

Obama 08

Im Still convinced the most important issue on the table is this war. The economy will settle out after the smoke clears from 8 years of total neglect. But McCain actually thinks we can win a war with shadows, thats scarey. And, you certainly cant be concerned with Russia, Afgan or Korea with our forces spread so thin. Our muscle and therefore influence in the regions are waining, and they all know it. Not to mention, like Vietnam, the second we leave, the vacuum will fill with another nutjob and the fighting will continue, because thats what they do there, for 1000s of years.

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

Saturday, September 27, 2008
What A Debate Reveals: Anger, Entitlement and Contempt

What I found shocking reflecting on last night's debate was how angry and entitled McCain was, in a very open way.

McCain's manner was one of that who believed he should not even be on the same stage with this person. This indicates a person of extreme rights and extreme wrongs, not a statesmanlike persona, but an angry and impulsive one.

McCain carries strong ideas of what a liberal is, ideas that very little from his cherished ideas of who betrayed the nation during the Vietnam war. A stock character, driven and created by his own rage, carried, as it has been since the '70s, with a virtual ideological blindness--blinded by a contemptuous rage--that there are others who cannot understand the world the way he can. This is not judgment, but angry certainty. This is not readiness, but a just-contained rage that he should be confronted by such ideas.

You can see it in his constricted "can you believe it" rage at one who disagrees with him. This kind of contemptuous, angry dismissal of others ideas leads easily into the impulsive decisions of the last few months--generated with barely contained contemptuous rejection of those who would reject his ideas--only the most recent forms of those essential constructs--a contemptible media, easily fed with false notions and panaceas, as he believes they were earlier in his life; intellectuals, whose reason and deliberation is contrasted with the sharp, impulsive action that for his life has constituted a certain knowledge, and an angry, certain need to sweep away those who would stand in the path of righteous certainty.

What is beautifully ironic is how McCain maintains this contempt even as he switches from one position to another in the opportunistic second--this is when the look of contempt and entitlement turns, for a moment, to anxiety and panic.

Soon, however, the gaze is back. No matter what the new position is--impulsively determined, desperately grasped--if only "they" knew better. If only "they" knew the truth.

This kind of ideological rigidity and certainty (note how Obama could not contain himself from smiling when McCain attempted to compare him to Bush in that regard) combined with impulsive decision making, from the "gut" of sure knowledge, is what has created the outcomes of the past 8 years.

It was--in a setting where one would not expect it to be, where one would expect McCain to contain it--glaring apparent last night.

This is an amplification of the last 8 years rather than a change.

We do not need to experience this type of decision making again.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

Saturday, September 27, 2008
What A Debate Reveals: Anger, Entitlement and Contempt

What I found shocking reflecting on last night's debate was how angry and entitled McCain was, in a very open way.

McCain's manner was one of that who believed he should not even be on the same stage with this person. This indicates a person of extreme rights and extreme wrongs, not a statesmanlike persona, but an angry and impulsive one.

McCain carries strong ideas of what a liberal is, ideas that very little from his cherished ideas of who betrayed the nation during the Vietnam war. A stock character, driven and created by his own rage, carried, as it has been since the '70s, with a virtual ideological blindness--blinded by a contemptuous rage--that there are others who cannot understand the world the way he can. This is not judgment, but angry certainty. This is not readiness, but a just-contained rage that he should be confronted by such ideas.

You can see it in his constricted "can you believe it" rage at one who disagrees with him. This kind of contemptuous, angry dismissal of others ideas leads easily into the impulsive decisions of the last few months--generated with barely contained contemptuous rejection of those who would reject his ideas--only the most recent forms of those essential constructs--a contemptible media, easily fed with false notions and panaceas, as he believes they were earlier in his life; intellectuals, whose reason and deliberation is contrasted with the sharp, impulsive action that for his life has constituted a certain knowledge, and an angry, certain need to sweep away those who would stand in the path of righteous certainty.

What is beautifully ironic is how McCain maintains this contempt even as he switches from one position to another in the opportunistic second--this is when the look of contempt and entitlement turns, for a moment, to anxiety and panic.

Soon, however, the gaze is back. No matter what the new position is--impulsively determined, desperately grasped--if only "they" knew better. If only "they" knew the truth.

This kind of ideological rigidity and certainty (note how Obama could not contain himself from smiling when McCain attempted to compare him to Bush in that regard) combined with impulsive decision making, from the "gut" of sure knowledge, is what has created the outcomes of the past 8 years.

It was--in a setting where one would not expect it to be, where one would expect McCain to contain it--glaring apparent last night.

This is an amplification of the last 8 years rather than a change.

We do not need to experience this type of decision making again.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/anger-entitlement-and-contempt.html

During the debate, and many times before, John McCain accused Barack Obama of being willing to ???lose??? the Iraq war.
What does Sen. McCain think 'winning' in Iraq is? Who exactly would surrender to us to allow us that moment of triumph? Is ???victory??? in the sense that McCain uses it even possible?
The mistake is confusing Iraq with wars like Vietnam and WW II where there was a clear enemy we were trying to defeat.
By that standard the war in Iraq should have ended long ago. The war was sold to Congress and the American people as a war against Sadaam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.
Well, Sadaam is long dead and there were no weapons of mass destruction, so by that measure we ???won??? several years back.
But the goal posts were moved, and the Iraq war went from being a war against a brutal dictator to being part of the global war on terror.
The ???war on terror??? is not a war against a specific aggressor in a specific place. It???s far more akin to the War on Drugs, or the War on Cancer or the War on Crime, or Poverty.
It???s a war that can only be won in increments, on many different fronts. A war that must involve diplomacy and bridge building as well as military might. A war that will involve supporting moderate Arab states, protecting our ports, and building alliances. Even if Osama Bin Laden was captured tomorrow, the war on terror wouldn???t be over. As has been admitted by military and political leaders across the political spectrum, there will probably never be a moment the war is ???won???. Only advances to be made.
So, in that context, Sen. Obama???s suggestion that we re-allocate our resources in that war is no call for admitting defeat, but intelligent recognition that we should be using our national treasure and risking the lives of our young men and women with the greatest of care, and only where they will do the most good. Far from being defeatist, that is simply sound military strategy.
Let???s take another of these ???wars???, the ???War on Cancer???. Suppose the current administration was pouring billions into fighting one rare form of the disease that most experts felt wouldn???t help in the search for a global cure, while ignoring lung cancer, colon cancer and others that killed thousands of American???s each year.
If Sen., Obama were to point this out, and say we should re-allocate those research funds to help save more lives, does that means he advocates ???losing??? the war on cancer? No, it would simply be sound ???big picture??? thinking, -- something John McCain seems frighteningly lacking in.

..........................................McCain calls himself a Maverick and makes surprised impetuous decisions that I do not mostly agree with......he seems UnPresidential to me and more like a Loose Cannon that misfires alot. Sarah Palin is calling herself a Maverick now also and makes wild unwise statements and comments in retort to the questioning she gets....she seems terribly Inexperienced!!
McCain will be 76 years old plus if he is in office at the end of the next Presidential Term, he will be a Walking Lame Duck for much of a first term and dealing with failing health mentally and physically with Palin standing in for him during any hospitalizations or times of incapacity....I call that BAD FOR AMERICA. McCain could have a protracted illness and die in office and then he would be a Dead Duck. And the inexperienced Palin would be our President, the Wolf Killing very inexperienced Maverick that she claims to be..............America should be able to see this and not fall for the political jive and fluffed up hype that McCain and Palin are dumping on us......think about this deeply!!!!