Thursday, August 7, 2008

Reed: America Can't Afford Four More Years

Welcome back to the blog, folks. As a follow up to last week's topic, "Is Barack Obama qualified to be President?", it was only logical to present his opponent in the same format. And the coin toss dictates that I will argue that Senator John McCain is not the most qualified candidate for the presidency.

Let me begin by saying that I honor, as do the vast majority of Americans, Sen. McCain's military service and agree that he is a bona fide hero. And his service to America through his many years in the Senate is commendable. But experience in and of itself is not a qualification. America needs someone, now more than ever, who can inspire us to achieve positive results. John McCain has not demonstrated, in this campaign, that he has that capability.

McCain has spent the majority of the last few months not touting his own record, but ridiculing his opponent. In spite of a pledge to conduct a positive, issue-oriented campaign, his statements have been pointedly critical of Sen. Obama while not explaining why he is the more credible choice.
A prime example is the recent flap over Obama's suggestion that Americans should check their tire pressure to insure they are getting the maximum fuel economy in their automobiles. The McCain campaign handed out tire pressure gauges engraved with the message, "Obama Energy Plan." McCain said in a speech that Obama "doesn't want to drill, he doesn't want nuclear power, he wants you to inflate your tires."

Apparently, and to his credit, Sen. McCain has since done a little research, and has learned that indeed, even the American Automobile Association advocates making sure tires are properly inflated for maximum fuel economy. During an appearance in Ohio on August 5, McCain pointed out Triple A's corroboration of Sen. Obama's suggestion and said, "I don't disagree with that."

Oh, Lord - another "flip-flop".

That phrase, "flip-flop", is getting very old. I admire anyone who, after reasonably discussing an issue and being willing to learn, can say, "maybe I was wrong." Many in Congress have done so when it comes to their votes supporting the war in Iraq. But Sen. McCain, while criticizing how the war was conducted, has stubbornly resisted admitting that the decision to go to war was a mistake, in spite of the fact that, in a recent AP-Ipsos poll, 56 percent of Americans said that invading Iraq was a mistake, 62 percent disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war, and 66 percent oppose the war in general. (see www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm). So, Americans' stated desires notwithstanding, Sen. McCain is willing to stand with President Bush and support this unpopular war, with no timetable for withdrawal, thus continuing the policies of the current administration.

And here is my greatest fear, and the most compelling reason that I believe Sen. McCain should be denied the White House. Eight years of failed policies, both foreign and domestic, can not and should not be continued. And in spite of his disputes with the administration, the "maverick" John McCain has voted with Bush far more than he has voted against him. In fact, Sen. Obama recently pointed out that McCain "decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time." And, according to the Congressional Quarterly, his statement is accurate (see www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html).

America simply cannot afford four more years of the same failed policies. There is too much at stake, for our economy, our environment, our security and our future. We must chart a new course, and we need new leadership in order to be successful. John McCain is not the man to lead America now. To read Dano's point of view, click here.

3 comments:

Dano said...

Reed, another stellar post, but I have to say I disagree that McCain wants to stay in Iraq with "no time table for withdrawal." He did flip-flop on this issue recently, when he said that 16 months (Obama's number)seemed a reasonable time frame for withdrawal if conditions on the ground warrant it. Obviously, as another of our posts today indicated, even the Bush Administration appears to be accepting the notion of a timetable for bringing troops home.

Dano said...

The following comment that addresses this post was located under Dano's post for this week (Dan's response is under the original comment under Dano's post).

Anonymous said...

A little disappointed in what I'm reading. Dano did do his research before he wrote his blog but clearly let his Obama bias show. Reed on the other hand just regurgitated what he heard on CNN or read in the USA Today.

Let's address Reed first. This tire pressure rhetoric is exactly that. McCain is right for attacking Obama on this one. It's just a bunch of posturing by Obama. It sounds good and about 50% of the population of this country will buy in to rhetoric and clearly they have. Truth be know 80% of the cars on the road are within in decent tire pressure. At most and this according to the Government that can be gained is 3.3% in fuel mileage and at that it has to be all four tires extremely low to recover that kind of fuel mileage. At best you will recover 1% and on a 15 gallon tank that's 3 miles per tank and 59.4 cents at $4 a gallon.

I'm in the auto repair business. We check tires everyday. Very few are out of range on tire pressures.

McCain did play the political card and agreed with government reports but recognize that you can run on the rims and then put tires on the vehicles and only gain 3.3%. So no McCain doesn't disagree with the government report but he does reconize that drilling gets us out of the Gas Crunch.....not Tire Inflation. We built a navy and won a war in 41 to 45 and we are suppose to believe Obama that it would take 10 years to get oil out of new wells? If we had drilled in Anwar during the Clinton administration, we would have never had this Gas Crunch because we would be pumping that oil "10 Years" later.

As far as McCain voting with Bush, if it's the right way to vote then it's the right way to vote. It doesn't prove McCain will continue Bush's policies like some blind pig looking for an acorn as the media and Reed would have us believe.

Now to Dano. First of all I never believe anything I read on Wikipedia. It is written by any Joe Blow and they can't possibly keep up with the fact checking required for a site like that. Anybody can write whatever they want. Even Wikipedia says the information may be in error and asks for a minimum of 9 months for fact checking. On top of that the facts aren't nearly the issue as the spin you get especially on the political posts.

Dano does get it right on the war. We won the war in less than 100 days, faster than we won desert storm. It has been a police action ever since (which is what Democrats prefer by the way) but some groups love to keep calling it a "war." However, I'm not so sure he got it right accusing Bush of failed policies on the war. By what definition are the policies failed? By the liberal left media and the Democrats? Do any of you reading this know how many schools we have built there in the last 6 years? I'm not going to tell you. You do the research. The only way minds can be changed to the truth is if they do the research themselves. Dano actually spends most of his blog arguing against Bush but he is supposed to be debating for McCain. He even calls Iraq a third world country. The fifth largest army in the world is a third world country? I don't think so.

Although, I would rather see McCain than Obama, I don't know that McCain will do a better job than Bush. After all McCain was trained to fight a jungle war and the military has been training for Desert war for 30 years. I guess he is equiped to make decisions however.

Dano didn't really make a good arguement for McCain even though his research was better than Reed's. Reed on the other hand just gave us more recesitation regurgitation.

Can you imagine the position we would be in had Gore been president. I mean this guy actually believes the sky is falling. This chicken little idiot lives in a mansion, is a slum lord and wants me and you to sacrifice our lifestyles so he can afford a $1000 a month or more electric bill.

Yeah I know this wasn't about Gore but it just lead into that because of the resesitations and the poor arguements made by the bloggers.

No offense guys and I realize it's only the second week but if you want this thing to work the way you say you want it to work you have to step it up....... a lot.
August 11, 2008 12:24 AM

J.T. Twilley said...

Reed I think your post made me want to vote for McCain MORE than Dano's did. And I *DON'T* want to vote for McCain. How did you do that. It's a mistake that liberals often make, they mask their points of views as "jokes" or digs and make a buffoon out of their opponents, which gets a laugh and makes people forget about the REAL issue at hand.

You pulled the smoke and mirror (heretofore called the "liberal joke trick) when you make McCain out as a buffoon for the tire gauge shtick. Now, its true perhaps that the McCain campaign might have got a little too cute for their own good with that stunt. (They shouldn't really try to play the comedian game with the liberals, Republicans just aren't funny as a general rule) But the point was a valid one, we've got to do more than "put tape on our windows."

Russia is busy buying up every natural resource in the world and is attacking Georgia because of a competing pipeline. See here

Meanwhile, the "green movement" for which Al Gore has brainwashed the American masses are causing us to believe that carbon-based energy is bad. Well, the Russians and Chinesse sure as heck don't care. They love Al Gore. Because he's allowed the Russians to surge ahead in oil exploration in the Artic. Going green is great. But it should be market driven, not government driven. Perhaps Paris Hilton wasn't so wrong, that the best solution is a combination of both McCain and Obama's energy plans. (I know she was reading from a script. But I for one think she's a great actress and socialite, and know she's got financial genius in her genes) But I digress.

I know Dano jumped on Anon for bringing up Al Gore, but you can't really talk about U.S. Energy policy today without either giving credit to or demonizing Gore, because he's influenced where we are today for better or worse. I'm mixed. I think Gore's influence has tied our hands in a very dangerous matter. We've ignored traditional threats such as Russia and China as we've been focused on the War on Terror. I'm not big on government running businesses, but if nothing else I'd advocate our government drilling on our soil. Cap the wells until we need them, that's fine, but get the wells dug so that WHEN we need them IF we need them, all we got to do is turn them on.