It seems that Barack Obama is kicking John McCain’s "you know what" in the newspaper endorsement department. But why isn’t it a shutout? Who the hell would endorse McCain, except for the hardest-core right wingers? I decided to look into it, and examine why these people are endorsing Gramps.
From the Dallas Morning News:
In better times, America could afford to consider entrusting the White House to an appealing newcomer like Mr. Obama and giving control of the presidency and Congress to the same party.
But in this time of great anxiety, the American people need a leader of experience guiding the ship of state. Mr. McCain offers the continuity, stability and sense of authority people want, as well as a decisive break from the Bush years.
The Democrat talks about change, but only the Republican has made change happen. Only one candidate has a solid record of standing up to his own party on principle and working hand in hand with legislators from the opposing party to get things done.
That candidate is John McCain, a progressive conservative we recommend.
I’m of the opinion that the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News is made up of the dumbest people anywhere. Seriously; we’ve had to endure the worst administration in the country’s history for the last eight years. The government policies of the last eight years have led us to the brink of what could be our worst economic mess since the second-worst administration, the Hoover Administration. In addition to the severe economic distress we find ourselves in, we also find ourselves bogged down in one arguably just war, and an occupation, both of which can be politely considered FUBARed. Everytime there’s a natural disaster, the entire country holds its breath, and hopes the government won’t make it worse.
Yet these clowns want McCain in there for four years for "continuity" and "stability"? Are they kidding with this?
Yeah, what better way to fix the problems we face by "continuing" the same policies, and offering "stability" by not changing a thing? Of course, they also claim McCain would represent a "decisive break from the Bush years." Besides the fact that there’s no evidence that McCain would represent a "decisive break," given the sloppy kisses he’s given the Bushies and their policies over the last year or so, what has he done during this campaign, which is supposed to be an "audition" for the job, that even remotely be described as demonstrating a "sense of authority"?
And how insane is calling McCain a "progressive conservative"? At best, he’s a right winger who’s less unctuous than the worst of them, like Tom DeLay, and who, until this election campaign, at least, refused to cross a line that other right wingers were more than willing to cross.
This gem is from the Tampa Tribune:
Hard economic times, a disappointing Republican administration and the seductive promises of a master orator are pushing America toward a European-style social democracy. If you don’t want that to happen, vote for Republican Sen. John McCain. …
McCain brings a lifetime of useful experience, including his grueling captivity in Vietnam and long Senate service. He believes in federalism, a strong defense and disciplined self-interest.
McCain has been willing to cross party lines to work on tough problems. He co-authored a campaign finance law that failed to fulfill its objective, but he did muster the bipartisan support needed to try to control the buying and selling of public office. …
(Barack) Obama’s vision of hope shines like a rainbow, appealing but just out of reach. McCain’s call to freedom and responsibility is less exciting, but you know it works. The Tribune encourages voters to vote what they believe, not what they wish were true. The nation needs a stable leader in these unpredictable times.
So, let’s get this straight. According to these right wing clowns, continuing the work of a "disappointing Republican Administration" (which is an extremely optimistic way to look at the most disastrous administration in history) is preferable to "Obama’s vision of hope."
Yet, we liberals are the ones who are supposedly negative and angry? For Chrissakes, folks; these people are actually saying that the United States can’t possibly be a better country, and the government can’t do any better than it’s done for the last eight years, so we might as well not even try.
As for the fear of "European-style social democracy" they stoke above, well, Europe has become the largest economy in the world, the Euro is increasingly becoming the global standard. They have a better health care system, and pay far less for it than we do. They’re developing a better social system than we have, at the same time they are passing us economically. And they’re not saddled with a debt anywhere near the size of ours, either governmentally or individually.
In other words, we’re in debt up to our eyeballs, our health care system is broken, and we’re already in second economically, and in danger of being fourth or fifth within a decade. It seems to me it’s not necessarily a bad thing to look at the best, and try to emulate them.
It’s clear the few right wing hangers-on are simply trying to rationalize their desire to hold onto power for as long as possible, without regard to the good of the country. Compare the above endorsements of McCain, to a very surprising endorsement of Obama:
The next U.S. president will lead a nation that remains embroiled in two wars and is beset by an economic meltdown more severe than any since the Great Depression.
By necessity, the country’s next commander in chief must also be its mender in chief, capable of inspiring his angry and divided constituents to join together in a recovery project to restore the peace, prosperity, and self-confidence we once knew.
We fear that a lesser effort may be insufficient to reverse America’s slide toward economic, political and societal chaos. The times require dramatic and comprehensive change.
The presidential candidates know it, and have made it their mantra.
Most Americans know it, and, in growing numbers, are demanding it.
The countries that have long depended upon the United States for enlightened global leadership long for it.
For the sake of all, and for those who follow us, we must have it.
The editorial board of The Salt Lake Tribune believes that Barack Obama can deliver it.
Yes, folks; it’s what I’ve been saying for a very long time. There is a huge difference between an ideological conservative, and what’s been running our country the last eight years. True conservatives care about what’s best for their country, and put it ahead of what’s best for their party.
I get that Obama’s not going to get 100% of the vote. He probably won’t even get 55%, although anything’s possible. But if you’re going to endorse McCain, why not just be honest about it, and admit that you’re a lifelong Republican, and simply want to see the Republican Party remain in power, regardless of the continued damage to the country. Why don’t you just admit you’re extremists? Why pretend you’re endorsing McCain for rational reasons?
Speaking of irrational, one of the other endorsements McCain received today was from none other than — drumroll, please —
Pastor John Hagee.
This is what Hagee had to say with regard to his endorsement of McCain:
John McCain is a man of principle. He does not stand boldly
on both sides of any issue.
Apparently, Hagee hasn’t been paying attention. If he had, he might have chosen another basis on which to endorse John McCain. McCain has changed his mind on just about everything he ever claimed to believe before this election cycle. Not only is he now advocating against the immigration bill with his name on it, but he’s hired the same people to trash Obama, who he excoriated in 2000 for trashing him.
And why would Hagee think such an endorsement would help McCain, anyway, what with McCain making "associations" a keystone of his campaign? Hagee is one of the most reprehensible evangelical preachers in the country, and that’s no mean feat. He doesn’t believe in global warming, thinks your kids’ reading of Harry Potter is downright heathenous, that Catholics and Mormons belong to "cults," and that Jesus only came to save Christians, not the Jews.
By the way, Internal Revenue Service, um… isn’t it a violation for the pastor of a tax-exempt church to endorse a political candidate? I’m just saying…
Copyright 2008 The PCTC Blog