20 posts tagged “2008 election”

Last night, shortly after hearing about the Obama victory, I listened to John McCain's concession speech, where the old, independent McCain re-emerged from under the murk of campaign rhetoric.   As I listened to him speak, I was reminded of a McCain who would have made a much better president than George Bush, had he been elected in 2000.

But in 2008, he never stood much of a chance of being elected.  Putting aside the obvious reason that Obama was simply the better candidate with a better run campaign, I thought of several other reasons which contributed to doom the McCain campaign.

1.  George Bush

Arguably the worst and least popular president the United States has ever had, McCain was handicapped from the very start by having to drag around the millstone of guilt by association with Bush.   This factor would have hampered the campaign of any Republican candidate, however, not just McCain.   Rightly or wrongly, McCain was dubbed "McSame" by a population weary of eight years of inept Republican leadership and who were ready for a major change.

2.  Karl Rove

As another blogger said, nasty isn't nice.   The dirty campaign he ran that obscured the real McCain, who was relatively moderate and known for reaching across the aisle to work in a bi-partisan manner, backfired on McCain.

3. Sarah Palin

The unfortunate pick of the grossly underqualified and bizarre Sarah Palin was the final straw for many voters, who might otherwise would have voted for McCain.  She was chosen to appease a Religious Right that was clearly unenthusiastic about McCain, who was never one of them.   The discomfort many people had with the idea of her possibly becoming president should McCain become disabled, was yet another nail in the coffin of the McCain campaign, 

4. McCain's age

Directly related to the reason above, compared to the young, vital, and forward looking Barack Obama, McCain came off as old, tired, and mired in the past.   Coupled with an extremist, unqualified, loose cannon running mate, McCain's age was a major concern to many voters.   He might have been able to mitigate this factor somewhat had he chosen a qualified and experienced running mate with a broader appeal, however.   Nevertheless, it was obvious to many that McCain's time had passed and it was time to look forward with a new generation.

There are many other reasons why McCain lost the election, but these four coupled with the obvious reason of Obama simply being an outstanding candidate, were the ones that most quickly came to mind.

Thoughts?

At 11pm Eastern time, I learned that Barack Obama had been elected 44th president of the United States.

For the first time in eight years, I have hope that things will get better in this country and that we'll regain the respect of the rest of the world..  

I have to admit that as the historic moment swept over me, I felt a little misty.  I felt as aware of the historical significance of this election as we did when Neil Armstrong first landed on the moon.

I'm a bit speechless at the moment, but very happy.  Feel free to share your thoughts below.

I had the day off today, which was perfect for the purposes of voting.  I was able to choose any time I wanted to go vote and didn't have to worry how long I had to wait because I had nowhere I had to be after the election.  Plus, I'd have the evening free to watch the returns.

It was a beautiful day for voting, unseasonable warm and clear, with the autumn leaves at full brilliance in shades of red, orange, and yellow.

I arrived at my polling place, a church near the post office, shortly before one this afternoon.   The polling place was busy, but it wasn't as packed as I expected it to be.  The parking lot was nearly full, but I had no trouble finding a place to park.  I had only a forty minute wait before my turn came to cast my vote for Barack Obama.   I voted by machine, as I'd done in the 2004 election.

Most of the voters who'd chosen to vote at the same time I did were elderly people, and all but one were white.  Because my state is expected to go red as usual this year, I imagine that most of the people in the room were Republicans, but I smiled, knowing that I'd be canceling out the vote of one person, at least.

How did your voting go?

Since 1940, the Scholastic Weekly Reader, read by schoolkids in classrooms nationwide has conducted an Election Poll every four years, with the poll also being available online since 2000,  Students from elementary school on up have chosen the winning candidate all but two times, 1948 and 1960.

This year, a quarter of a million students participated in the poll and the results are in.  With a margin of 57 to 39 percent, the vote went overwhelmingly to Obama.

Many people consider the children's poll to be significant, both because they've picked the winner so often and secondly, because their voting patterns tend to mirror what they're hearing at home.

I certainly hope the kids are right again this year.

I've heard many Republicans say that they won't vote for Barack Obama because they believe he is a "socialist".  Though I believe that he's more conservative than that, I have to wonder why such people have such horror and fear about socialism.   From what I've read some conservatives consider it to be practically communism.

But is it really?

Let's take a look at the countries that have practiced socialism and those that have practiced communism.   The "communist" countries, past and present, can't really be called "communist", using a pure definition of the word.  Rather, they have all been dictatorships, totalitarian states.

The socialist nations, of which the Scandinavian countries are a prime example, are free societies with free elections.  They all have a high standard of living and also boast the highest life expectancies on the planet (no doubt due to socialized medicine!).   Doesn't sound too awful to me.

It seems as if there's not a whole lot of sameness when you compare communism to socialism, after all.

But conservatives have a long history in mixing things up, which is because of their tendency toward black and white thinking.   They're the ones who are against gay people teaching young children, because they've got homosexuality mixed up with pedophilia, which is akin to saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger must be a Nazi because he was born in Austria like Adolf Hitler was.

Thoughts?

Conservative Republicans have traditionally been against the rich paying higher taxes, believing that tax breaks for businesses and corporations will ultimately help those further down the economic ladder.   They believe that businesses receiving such breaks will presumably pass the good fortune on by creating more jobs, giving employees better pay and more benefits, which will in turn further stimulate the economy.

This sounds very nice on paper, but real life is quite a bit more complicated than that.  The one essential factor left out of the trickle down fantasy is greed.

We must remember that businesses do not exist to help people to make a living.  Businesses are started to help the business owners MAKE MONEY, period.   Business owners consider the salaries paid and whatever benefits provided to employees as unavoidable business expenses -- and every business owner wants to minimize expenses, while maximizing profits.   Thus, business owners seek to pay employees as little as they can get away with, as well providing the fewest benefits possible, all in the interest of minimizing expenses.

If anyone believes that corporate America actually cares about their employees' well-being, then I've got a bridge in Manhattan I'll be willing to sell to you.

As far as I'm concerned, trickle-down economics is just a euphemism for pissing on the poor.

Today, an Alternet article, Conservatives Push Hard for Gay Marriage Ban, discussed California's Prop. 8, which seeks to rescind the right to same-sex marriage in that state, focusing on efforts by religious fundamentalists to see Prop. 8 passed.

My comment to that article follows below:

In this article Chuck Colson said:

"If sexual freedom is the ultimate liberty, then you have to rewrite the Bill of Rights. This vote on whether we stop the gay marriage juggernaut in California is the Armageddon. We lose this -- we're going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion."

My response to him is:

Sexual freedom is very important, as it directly relates to the right to privacy and the right of free association.

I would also advise Colson that religious freedom has two components: freedom OF religion and, no less important, freedom FROM religion. He has every right to practice his religion as he sees fit, but he and others have no right to impose any aspect of religion on others.

The basis for all state and federal laws regulating consensual adult activity are religious in origin. Civil laws regulating American marriage are a place where religious ideas about the "proper" form of intimate relationships have been enforced as "secular" law.

Marriage was a religious institution until the evolution of civil law. Now, we must question whether it would be best to offer everyone the right to marry, or does our constitutional commitment to religious freedom actually require that the government get out of the marriage business altogether?

The First Amendment requires both the disestablishment of religion and protection for the free exercise of religion, which includes all religions and the right not to practice religion as well. If marriage is based on religion, it too, should be disestablished, thus protecting the free exercise of sexuality.

Sexual freedom also has parallels with religious freedom. That is, we aren't born any particular religion that we cannot change -- we choose what, if any, religion we will practice and the right to do so is protected by the Constitution. Likewise, gays and lesbians shouldn't have to justify why they're homosexual in order to enjoy the same freedom in regards to sexual practices. Whether or not homosexuality is a "choice", it should have no bearing on their rights.

Right wing talk show pundits are fond of wringing their hands about the "plight" of rich people having to pay higher taxes than less affluent people.  They complain the loudest about tax money being spent on social programs that help the less fortunate, with health care reform being one of their pet peeves..

They rail againt not being able to "keep every dollar they make", viewing it as being no more than government sponsored "stealing" of their "hard earned dollars".   They do this, conveniently ignoring the fact that even after paying taxes, they're still rich and still are living comfortable, privileged lives.   The real issue is that it just grinds their gears that their tax dollars are going to actually (gasp!) help other people, whom they believe are all undeserving losers who lay around smoking pot all day.

I find it rather interesting, though, that they never complain about their tax money going to fund an increasingly expensive and unpopular war, for example, or other programs that do not assist underprivileged people.  You didn't hear a word of complaint from them when the government spent more than $40 million for the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations, to cite another example.

But taxes, like death, are inevitable and they're not going to go away, even if changes are eventually made in how they're collected.  The government is going to get the money it needs to operate, regardless.  I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help less fortunate people; it's just a part of life when one lives in a civilized society -- part of what gives any given society the right to be called civilized.   Given today's shaky economy, any one of us could one day (and sometimes suddenly) be one of the weaker members of society and need assistance.   

Thoughts?

Religious Right fundamentalists are expected to go to the polls to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket in a few short weeks.  Their support of John McCain is decidedly tepid; they are voting against Barack Obama more than they are voting for John McCain, if statements made by religious right leaders earlier this year are any indication.

In February, Focus on the Family's James Dobson said:

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country."

In a major flip-flop, Dobson made this statement a few days ago:

"It's probably obvious which of the two major candidates' views are most palatable to those of us who embrace a pro-life, pro-family worldview," Dobson said.

"While I will not endorse either candidate this year, (in fact, I've only endorsed one presidential nominee in my life) I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency."

Why the flip-flop, you might ask?   It's very simple.  McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate to appease Dobson and others of his ilk.   She's one of them, a fundamentalist -- a "true believer".

And this brings me to the issue of John McCain's age and health.   This is a reality that both Democrats and fundamentalist Republicans fully acknowledge and are concerned with.  But the two groups approach this issue from different perspectives.

Both groups acknowledge that, if elected, there is a strong possibility that John McCain might be incapacitated or die because of bad health while in office, at which time Sarah Palin would become President of the United States.

The difference is that this is something that fundamentalists would secretly welcome, as it would elevate "one of their own" to the Presidency, removing the candidate they had to hold their noses to vote for.   Democrats, on the other hand, would be praying for McCain's continued good health, should he be elected President, as he's a lot less scary and is more qualified to be President than his running mate.

Thoughts?