This comment response grew to the point of absurdity in length and earned itself the status of a post. It is in response to my friend Larissa’s comments here about Braceletgate. Wait, I promised not to do that.
Well! To which comment shall I respond? First, glad to have you here. I always enjoy a lively debate.
I haven’t gotten an opportunity to really opine on the happenings of Friday night’s debate yet as I’ve been working and getting sick all weekend. The one probably led to the other.
In short, my thoughts are this: reactions to the debate are absolutely all over the place. Pundits have a mishmash, smorgasbord of opinion. A poll can be found to agree with almost anyone’s perception of the debate. Diehard Republicans and Democrats, a group to which I believe you reside, seem to be sure their respective candidate wonderfully trounced the other and came off looking great. In the last two days, I’ve seen and read The Faithful of both camps feverishly repeating the rhetoric from spin alley, and the broad spectrum of polls taken after the debate, both scientifically and otherwise, seem to reflect the defined positions of those being polled more than anything else. What’s funny is that much of the criticism of the candidates could be, and actually is, applied to either. You mentioned that you thought McCain was rude and disrespectful. I’ve heard the same argument leveled at Obama for his continuous interruptions and references to McCain as “John.” (I had actually not read the arguments about McCain being disrespectful anywhere until I looked up network news coverage of the debates to get their poll numbers. Seems that was a common thread amongst former Democratic operatives like Stephanopoulos.) What a person saw in the debate depends largely on the political lenses through which they watched.
For what it’s worth, I must have been watching an entirely different debate. I saw two bumbling, nervous, inarticulate presidential hopefuls leave me with much to be desired. McCain couldn’t seem to present his thoughts and plans in a package that could be quickly understood by the listening public, and he still has yet to show an ability to stray from the repetitive talking points of his campaign. For some strange reason, Obama chose to begin answering Lehrer’s question about which programs he would cut in his budget due to the $700 billion Wall Street bailout by talking about new programs and initiatives that he’d like to see enacted. And when he continued to show his ignorance on foreign affairs and McCain began to hammer him for it, Obama lost his cool, and that’s when his mumble-fest began.
My prediction for the debate was wrong, and I’m still surprised. I honestly thought the topic would’ve shifted more substantially to economics than it did. When Lehrer moved onto foreign policy after only a couple questions, I was stunned. And from that point on, they stuck to foreign policy. Had I known they were going to stick to the set topic, I admittedly would’ve expected McCain to perform better than he did, considering foreign policy is typically a Republican stronghold. I would’ve expected Obama to do about like he did, stuttering and mumbling through it all. (I have never understood the credit he gets for being a great orator. He is a great actor, delivering prepared lines with the best of them. But he has not yet shown that he possesses the ability to assimilate the facts on hand and deliver an effective and impressive response with authority, traits that are seen in great orators. Instead, he typically stammers with a string of uhs while formulating a somewhat lackluster reply. Not that McCain’s any different, but I don’t think I’ve heard anyone accusing him of being a great speaker.)
It’s a little disingenuous to imply that I make my political decisions based on the childlike silliness of non-issues like the bracelets. We’ve had many private discussions, and you know how well thought out my positions are, however disagreeable they may be to you. You’re aware of my apprehension concerning the McCain campaign. I’m certainly not entrenched in the McCain camp, and I have no problem calling him out for ridiculousness:
It appears the McCain stunt backfired and Obama won the standoff:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13970.html
I’m guessing the 2 hour free Obama commercial that would’ve happened tonight without McCain there was going to be too detrimental in comparison to the positive appearance of putting “country first.”
Kev
Perhaps I’m not doing a better job of framing my arguments, but at this stage in the game most of what I write concerning the candidates is from a politically strategic standpoint, it’s not a comparison of qualifications or readiness for the presidency as much as a look at the strategic nature of their political campaigns. I didn’t mean that Obama wearing the bracelet will make him a bad president. It was a bad idea because the family who gave it to him has requested that he not use it for political purposes in speeches anymore. He had to know that story would get out, and when it did, it showed a selfishness and deep lack of respect for that family’s privacy. And once again, they are being hounded by the press. I’ll bet his handlers are throwing a fit over this one. While it may have excited his faithful, it was not at all a brilliant move, and at best it was reactionary and merely canceled out the effects of McCain’s magic bracelet. It was childish of them both.
The winner of my vote is not at all based on these obvious political stunts or debate performances. Neither candidate has a perfect record (oh, what a joyous world that would be). The misgivings I have about Obama begin with what he preaches, which I disagree with enough that he immediately loses my support. It then moves to the examination of his public and political record where I find the absence of nearly any sign of success in the programs he’s led or supported. If that weren’t enough, pile on more misgivings with his notably dubious associations — people he worked with closely, too, not just some guy who lives in his neighborhood. And if you’re at all surprised by his recent penchant for strong arm political tactics like the ones he’s trying in Missouri, you shouldn’t be. Conservatives knew some time ago that his promise of a new kind of politics was hogwash. When backed into a corner, he acts just like the Chicago politician that he is, so no real surprise there. But again, these are just more disturbing things worry me, not the basic reason I can’t support him. Even if he was the most upright politician and carried out all campaign promises, those promises aren’t good for the country. I can’t support him.
McCain? Lesser of two evils, simple as that. McCain did almost nothing to impress me Friday night, and you’re not going to find any McCain-Palin bumper stickers on the Jetta. I do like Palin a lot, and I think she’s got a lot of promise and potential, but that’s based on her beliefs and then the actual execution of those beliefs as the head of government. (Those are the two most basic things I examine when a candidate asks for my vote: do I agree with what they espouse, and have they actually executed those beliefs with a successful result in the past? I’ll have to get back to you in my examination of all my representatives in Congress, but it’s not looking good.) Like I said in my email to you, Palin’s recent performances during interviews would make me squirm if I were on the campaign staff, and that’s even discounting the horrendous editing job done by ABC’s crew. The Republicans should be looking and performing way better than this, and I think much of the blame resides in the stiff, locked-down appearance of the campaign. This is further evidence for why I, like so many others, profess to be a conservative but not a registered Republican. To say that I am a Republican would imply that I am proud of the current state of that party, faithful to it, and protective of it. The Republican execution of conservative ideals in the last 8 years by both the President and the Congress has been simply abysmal. Please don’t judge conservatives by the Republicans in office: they are not us.
I’m glad you’re impressed by Obama’s thoughtful “nuanced” positions on things like the war, but I’m not. I wouldn’t call it nuanced as much as I would emotional and timid. I find it strange that he often speaks in high regard for JFK’s determination to meet with Khrushchev since it turned out to be such a disaster for the young, inexperienced, nuanced President. A Soviet aide said he seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” His own assistant secretary of defense said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Kennedy’s presentation of weakness in front of Khrushchev only served to embolden the Soviet leader, a boldness that lead to both the Berlin Wall and the placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba. We needn’t forget that it was actually Reagan’s refusal to negotiate until conditions were met that ended the cold war, not the hopeful ignorance of a young President in June 1961.
As President, Obama would be the head of the armed forces, and we need someone in that position who understands that the enemy is most likely going to be a rogue or dictatorial state where the will of the people doesn’t matter. I need the United States’ Commander in Chief to have just as much resolution to fight and win as our enemy, especially when it’s unpopular. I hate that war exists, and I’d love it if the rest of the world was so determined for peace as we are in America, but that’s just not reality. You and I both know we live in an evil, fallen world. Countries like North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan know exactly how far to push the weak, appeasement-inclined bureaucracies of the United Nations and the United States to get what they want. It’s a fairly simple formula, in fact. Do something crazy and ridiculous, and the United States will pay you to stop causing such a ruckus. Even a little kid begins to understand this insane Pavlovian-esque foreign policy merely rewards bad behavior. Does this mean we just bomb the crap out of every misbehaving nation? Of course not. But if military action is necessary, I want a President who understands how to make use of it rather than one that panders to Code Pink and their ilk.
Please understand that my criticisms of one candidate shouldn’t be taken to somehow mean praise to his opposition. Feel free to ask me for clarification on anything, but if I didn’t say it, don’t assume it. I don’t walk lock-step with a party.
On a slightly different note, feel free to join the comments section of my next post, a discussion thread regarding Obama’s legislative experience.
pwned