Friday, October 24, 2008

I would think that an honest answer to this, the most important question of this election, might clarify the thinking of an Undecided:

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

13 comments:

Scooter said...

They are trying to kill us. That message has been lost in the current financial mess.

Senator McCain was probably my penultimate choice of of all the Republicans I can recall running. I really do consider him a "great American, ok senator and terrible Republican." I don't trust him on illegal immigration. I'm starting to trust him on taxes. I hope I can trust him on judges.

I absolutely trust him on Islamofascism.

Anonymous said...

neither

Michael said...

Meaning what, Barr? Surely not. Who else is on the ballot? Can you really say you want that person answering the phone? C'mon, I said an Honest answer.

Stephanie said...

First of all, I'm of course waaaay more comfortable with a thoughtful, insightful intelligent, curious, even-tempered person answering the phone, so that's Obama for me. Further, you've got to ask the same questions w/r/t the VP who may end up at that phone.

Stephanie said...

And can I just point out that the Republicans (and their voters) have just provided us with surely one of the worst presidents in history, and for that reason alone, I recommend running away from their offering this time. BTW, if McCain had gotten the nomination in 2000, I would have had a hard time choosing, so I don't hate the man. He's well past his prime, though and he took a weird turn circa 2004 that's left me not getting who he is. And I completely GET who Sarah Palin is (despite the condescending crap about how we liberals don't get her appeal). I also GET who you THINK/THOUGHT she is and see a huge gap therebetween. (Common phenom with pretty girls.)

Stephanie said...

Her special needs program looks like wealth redistribution to me.

Michael said...

I also read Kathleen Parker today and I represent that remark.

Stephanie said...

Just read it. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying McCain was blinded by her beauty. I'm saying people (McCain yes, but also the people who were involved in picking her, the people involved in pushing for her, and the people who were all excited about her before they knew more than three things about her) did what people do to good-looking people: they projected onto her all kinds of positive things. As people have learned more about her, they see that their initial projections weren't accurate and their opinion of her has crashed. (See favorability ratings.)

Michael said...

Ah, step three. Check.

How to prove Barack Obama is not a socialist in 5 easy steps
Give a dictionary definition of socialism.

Ignore how Obama's uncharacteristically honest answer to Joe the Plumber (whoops, no teleprompter!) dovetails with The One's well-documented longtime friendships and working relationships with a bunch of radical socialists.


"A Republican did something that could be called socialist, which means Obama isn't even more of one."


Point to a phony poll and claim the message isn't connecting with voters.


Hit Send.

Posted by Jim Treacher

Stephanie said...

I actually think you can make hay with this socialism charge even though it's ridiculous. (Tax break to 95% of taxpayers; raising rate of the rest to match pre-Bush levels. REally, really, not socialist. Slightly --a SMIDGEON -- more progressive than what we have now. No one believes progressiveness is socialist.)

Stephanie said...

By the way, he didn't tell Joe the Plumber anything different than what he's said on the stump, in his written policy, in debates... No "gotcha" about it. No whoops.

Michael said...

Please direct me to spread the wealth.

Stephanie said...

Isn't all taxation a spreading of the wealth?