Why you shouldn't vote Obama-from a smart person (Cassandra)

cassandra

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 8:06 pm

Since I thankfully read at least two every day I'll have to just go with the one I read most recently and work backward:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/......html

cassandra

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 8:07 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article_......html

cassandra

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 8:10 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/......html

cassandra

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 8:15 pm

http://www.time.com/time/busin......html

cassandra

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 8:31 pm

Well it's not technically from me, but I have been working on the mother of all "Why you should vote for Obama" posts in my head for a while now.

gryp

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 8:41 pm

Cassandra, I think you covered the main issues nicely, but I still think his Muslim connections is also important.

cassandra

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 8:44 pm

I agree that it's important to the extent that fundamentalist Islam remains a major threat going forward. They think differently and play by a very different set of rules and at the very least Obama highly underplays this.

Miss Missie

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 9:45 pm

http://www.libnot.com/2008/10/.....card/

elf123

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 10:54 pm

The amazing part is, there has to be at least one or two other journalists/media people in the whole country who agree with this guy, but for some reason they have remained silent...maybe someone tied them all up in an underground bunker somewhere until after the election?

elf123

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 10:56 pm

Miss Missie wrote:

http://www.libnot.com/2008/10/21/would-the-last-honest-reporter-please-turn-on-the-lights-by-orson-scott-card/

Miss Missie

Fri, Oct 24 2008, 12:41 am

elf123 wrote:

Miss Missie wrote:

http://www.libnot.com/2008/10/21/would-the-last-honest-reporter-please-turn-on-the-lights-by-orson-scott-card/

They must be scared that it'll cost them their job! Truthfully, I can understand them after all the recent layoffs...

Miss Missie

Fri, Oct 24 2008, 11:56 am

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10.....4.htm

Just helping you out Cassandra when I really should be busy with my challas Smile

cassandra

Fri, Oct 24 2008, 2:44 pm

I am so embarrassed that the title of this thread has not yet been changed.

btMOMtoFFBs

Fri, Oct 24 2008, 2:55 pm

Saw this Krauthammer piece that answers this post (posted in another thread, too. )

McCain for President

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 24, 2008; A19

Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past 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?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Clarissa

Sun, Oct 26 2008, 8:06 am

Articles? I love 'em!

http://www.rollingstone.com/ne.....print

gryp

Sun, Oct 26 2008, 8:52 am

The funny thing about that article is that although it tries its hardest to smear McCain, it still sounds ten times better than an Obama presidency.

Clarissa

Sun, Oct 26 2008, 9:27 am

GR wrote:

The funny thing about that article is that although it tries its hardest to smear McCain, it still sounds ten times better than an Obama presidency.

Do you describe anti-Obama articles as attempts to "smear," as well?

At any rate, I don't care if people really read it. I just hate to be left out of a juicy linkfest.

gryp

Sun, Oct 26 2008, 9:40 am

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Depends on the agenda of the author. There are times the want to smear is so thick, I feel myself starting to choke. This is one of those times.

Clarissa

Sun, Oct 26 2008, 9:45 am

GR wrote:

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Depends on the agenda of the author. There are times the want to smear is so thick, I feel myself starting to choke. This is one of those times.

I agree, I've been doing some choking lately reading some of the stuff posted here. On the other hand, it's an election year, we'll be barraged with stuff that is hugely biased, some true, some exaggerated. We're almost there, thank goodness, and then hopefully this will die down.

gryp

Sun, Oct 26 2008, 9:52 am

This all makes me wonder who the Republicans will dig up for next time around.

Hopefully, this "year of elections" will be termed "year of Moshiach" instead.
I think we think we know what we're facing in the next four years but something tells me we ain't seen nothing yet.