Let me preface this with a disclaimer. I am not a John McCain fan. I am not an Obama fan either. I'm just an onlooker trying to figure this stuff out.
So ... Senator John McCain makes news by suspending his run for President because of an extremely pressing economic crisis. He calls on his opponent to do the same. Senator Barack Obama says, "No." Sure, there is an economic crisis, but what America really needs is a debate, not a solution. And the public goes wild. "Political posturing!" they cry. "It's a ploy. He's just not ready to debate. He's trying to make himself look good. It's a trick!"
I'm trying to figure this out. Go back to 2005 -- Hurricane Katrina. The complaint was that President Bush was asleep at the wheel. He didn't act fast enough. He fiddled while New Orleans burned (speaking figuratively, of course). Fast forward to yesterday. What do we see? John "McSame" steps away from the "asleep at the wheel" Bush image and moves quickly to participate in solving the crisis. The "change candidate", on the other hands, prefers to go on with business as usual and let someone else handle the situation. This is so confusing. Who is who?
But I'm really confused about the McCain backlash. People are sure there is some ulterior motive. "He's not ready to debate" makes no sense. The debate is on foreign affairs. If there is anywhere that McCain rules over Obama, it is foreign affairs. If there is any gain in postponing the debate, it is to Obama. "It's a ploy." I'm just not getting it.
Think of it this way. What would be the right thing to do? It seems to me that if you are a member of the most influential governing body in the most influential country on the planet, and that country is facing a serious crisis, the right thing to do is to set aside personal goals in favor of solving a national crisis. So which senator is doing that?
It seems to me that to prove that McCain is "evil" in doing what he has done, you would need to argue that it is wrong to attend to the crisis. You would need to show that it is the wrong thing to do. Conjecture about ulterior motives is all well and good, but is it the right thing to do? If not, why not?
3 comments:
I really like this about you, Stan. You think. Unlike so many Americans out there, you're not willing to just hand your brain over to the mainstream media and drink deep from their kool-aid (to mix anaolgies). I'm not a huge McCain fan either. But I'm scared stiff of Obama (in an earthly scared sort of way, knowing God is in complete control and in that sense, fearing nothing at all).
The events of the last few days have continued to prove to me how wrong Obama is for our country. McCain is potentially hurting his campaign by putting it off to deal with an important issue (I've called it a crisis in the last few days, but the more I learn, the more I realize that it isn't...all the fundamentals of the economy are strong) to do his job as a senator.
Here are a few more questions to ask:
~Why does Obama spout that a president needs to be able to do two things at once when he went to Washington begrudgingly (meaning he only wanted to focus on one thing, himself. It just happened to be the campaign).
~Why does Obama run to the press last night after the White House meeting yesterday that ended in shambles while McCain sneaks in and sneaks out?
~Why did the White House meeting end so badly anyway? Did I hear Obama admit to being the cause last night when he went on with Britt Hume?
~Why do democrats not pass a bill on this buyout issue without the republicans? If this issue is so critical, and so important, and they have what they believe to be a working plan, why do they need the republicans on board? They're the majority!
~Why do major democratic leaders keep bashing McCain for screwing everything up, when they know full well just one week ago they were going to leave Washington without dealing with this because, as the House Majority Leader said, "We don't know what to do." Did they have a revelation from God on how to fix this sometime in the last week and McCain is getting in the way?
All of this stinks...Obama has a lot of questions to answer, but something tells me we wouldn't get a straight answer.
Now that the crises continues, do you think McCain should re-suspend his campaign and go back to Washington? We are in the same spot we were last Wednesday; same crises. Presumably McCain could do the “same” help.
Secondly, what did you think of McCain bragging yesterday morning about how it was because of his trip to Washington that the bailout would work, and that Obama was wrong for “phoning it in”? Now that it did not pass, if he was to take the credit for the passing; should he take the blame for it not?
And what do you think of McCain blaming the Democrats when the majority of the “No” votes were Republicans—does that even make sense? (Not to mention it is a Republican President who was pushing for this bill.)
As I said at the outset, "I am not a John McCain fan." I thought that what McCain did looked like the responsible thing to do. When he left Washington and went to the debate without a resolution, it seemed like "politics as usual". "Do the right thing ... as long as it is expedient." He said he would suspend his campaign until this crisis was averted. He lied. I'm not impressed.
Dagoods: "Now that it did not pass, if he was to take the credit for the passing; should he take the blame for it not?"
Since it didn't pass and he, therefore can't take credit for it, how would two wrongs (taking the blame for it not) make a right?
Dagoods: "And what do you think of McCain blaming the Democrats when the majority of the 'No' votes were Republicans—does that even make sense?"
Well, that does make some sense. That is, the Democrats had a majority. They could have passed it with all Republicans voting against it. They didn't. That sounds like a Democrat hitch in the plan. On the other hand, what's the point? "They did it!" doesn't solve the problem, now, John, does it? It just repeats Pelosi's stupidity. "It's the President's fault!!!" Yeah, that's helpful.
But the first question -- should McCain do it again? No. Why? He already proved that it was a false intention. "Again" would mean rush back to Washington for a day, do nothing, and leave without resolution. He doesn't need to do it again. And, again, I have no candidate when it comes to Obama or McCain.
Post a Comment