I'm going to rebut Senator Obama's positions with Republican talking points, and then make a broader comment about what a sensible liberal has to do in order to achieve the most important items on their agenda. The speech I'm quoting from is here. I will provide links to the sources backing up my arguments as questions arise; I just wanted to get this written first.
A. Senator Obama's conflation of domestic/foreign affairs, and inability to understand what the President is primarily responsible for
Senator Obama:
Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors - the man who wrote his economic plan - was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."
Senator Gramm was the gentleman who said that bit about us being "a nation of whiners." He said it in response to something very specific - whether or not we are in a recession or not. Here's the complete argument, from the Washington Times:
"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."
"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.
"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.
Mr. Gramm said the constant drubbing of the media on the economy's problems is one reason people have lost confidence. Various surveys show that consumer confidence has fallen precipitously this year to the lowest levels in two to three decades, with most analysts attributing that to record high gasoline prices over $4 a gallon and big drops in the value of homes, which are consumers' biggest assets.
"Misery sells newspapers," Mr. Gramm said. "Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."
Now you may not agree with Senator Gramm's tact, but he's making a serious argument that has to be refuted point-by-point. Does Senator Obama have a response to the 1% growth rate, the major export boom, and the fact that the media does play up negative news? If he does, you don't see it in the acceptance speech.
What you do see is a conflation of domestic and foreign priorities in the Obama speech. Yes, there are heroes in quiet ways, such as the ones making brakes every day for a closing plant, and heroes who take bullets over and over. But no one said they were whining; Senator Obama himself says they are "without complaint." Sen. Gramm's complaints are quite obviously aimed at the media primarily. And what Senator Obama refuses to admit - and what has been a theme all throughout the DNC - is whether the foreign has any priorities over the domestic (cf. Plato's Republic - if we each have the perfect job for our ability, those who can kill others/guarantee security rule over us by default). If this were to be admitted, it would be devastating for the "George Bush sucks" argument. That there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on US soil, that Iraq is far more stable and the surge has succeeded, that a shift in priorities will be the death of the Taliban in Afghanistan - those are major foreign policy accomplishments in an unstable, difficult world where talking alone means nothing when countries are willing to invade each other over far less than WMD (witness Georgia).
B. Equality of opportunity means you need to do more than talk about humble people whom you think you represent
Senator Obama uses the caricature that George Bush can do nothing right to make his case. He doesn't really argue this. His speech gets worse when he tries to demonstrate that he understands the Republican ideology:
For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.
If this were true, I wouldn't be a Republican. The argument is that lower taxes and deregulation allow for the market to flourish. Private individuals can work together to make opportunities for still more individuals. Taxes crush economic growth, especially taxes on people who have the income to invest.
No Republican - except the nuttiest sort - is going to say there should be no welfare or no anti-poverty legislation. The argument in the 90's against AFDC was that it was corrupt beyond recognition, and there were workfare programs - i.e. Wisconsin's - that were doing excellent, creative work with individuals who needed help and genuinely extending equality of opportunity. We want to see results for the money we put at problems, not throw money at problems, so we'd much rather see private solutions than government ones. The reasoning here is that private industry may have incentives to do a better job than bureaucracy.
Obviously that reasoning can be challenged, but the way Senator Obama framed the problem, you'd think the opposition party had absolutely no reasoning but only wanted to beat up on poor people.
Now Senator Obama's primary appeal to us concerns equality of opportunity. He cites his young vets, students, his family, the workers he helped out early in his political career as being his heroes, but his primary solution is tax-relief, which doesn't put him at odds with the Republicans in substance, unless you really believe that Republicans want to tax 95% of working families for the heck of it - the money can't possibly be that substantial.
C. So what does energy dependence have to do with anything?
It's funny that Obama launches into this tirade after his discussion of taxes, because all you need is an IQ of 2 to realize that funding energy alternatives is serious cash. Cash that you might have to tax to get. The real means for equality of opportunity driving Senator Obama's vision is in this paragraph:
As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.
This is why the McCain camp can call Obama a "tax and spend" liberal. This money has to come from somewhere - the whole plan depends on getting new technology as soon as possible through public funding. There's no trust of us as individuals who are free, but there is a deep-seated belief that as we embrace the future, we are better for it. You might say that since Senator Obama has outlined tax breaks, he can't possibly hold back on those promises for these promises.
But remember: the Republicans will preserve tax cuts, and historically are pledged to giving them. The real difference between both parties is on spending priorities. If Senator Obama doesn't spend money on new technology, then the Democratic party is substantially no different than the Republican party economically. And that would mean the lobbyists for companies who have a vested interest in these sorts of programs could easily go to the McCain side.
Now Senator Obama says that his money for this and the "army of new teachers" he wants and the "health care for every single American" is going to come from corporate loopholes being closed. Besides the fact that very rich people have ways of dodging taxes that no government could hope to counter, we have noted above that if you assault the rich, you lose out on investment. If they don't invest, you don't get economic growth. They simply move and take their money elsewhere.
Given that Senator Obama himself is a product of class mobility, surely he understands that as problematic as some rich people are, many understand what most Americans are going through and would be happy to help in a private capacity? No?
D. Memo to Senator Obama's Campaign Advisor: Tell your candidate to shut up about foreign policy
This passage makes absolutely no sense:
For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.
And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.
That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.
You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.
Wait a second - it looks like we actually did defeat al-Qaeda by occupying Iraq. They considered it the forefront of the battle against us, and lost there. And that's taking Senator Obama's cynical view of things, purposely discounting the work the Bush administration did in the Phillippines, the pressure put on the Saudis, the efforts in Somalia and Ethiopia. Moreover - the tough talk has stopped Libya completely, and pushed North Korea to the negotiating table. Is Senator Obama this blind? If he becomes President, he's going to need to talk tough.
Furthermore - no country has lost more lives in the War on Terror than Iraq. They need and deserve that $79 billion surplus. There is no debate here, just as there is no debate about partitioning Iraq, as Senator Biden wanted to do. When the Iraqi Parliament was informed of Senator Biden's plan to divide Iraq, several lawmakers there asked him what he thought they were dying for.
Afghanistan is clearly causing us problems now because of Pakistan, which has a vested interest in the Taliban - they created it. Talking to Pakistan, Senator Obama, is going to do squat unless you're ready to play some complicated diplomatic games. Judging from your analysis right now, you are in no position to attempt those games.
But Afghanistan before was cleaned up in a matter of months - the resurgent Taliban isn't because we failed with the troop levels and resources, it's because another country is literally next door rebuilding them. Again, I don't understand one bit of where this analysis is coming from, but if a colleague of mine offered it, I'd call him an idiot to his face.
E. If you're liberal, how can you be realistic?
The deep problem with this speech is how it assesses the situation. There are elements of truth - I personally think the job market is no less than broken, actually - but Senator Obama doesn't get at the difference between the quality of work available and the benefits one receives from work. He almost exclusively sides with the benefits; his world is one where as long as people are getting stuff, they're happy.
That's not my world. That's not my America.
I think the denial of reality has to happen because liberals can't outright call Republicans gay-hating women-hating fascists. They can't do this because it's not true for the majority of conservatives, especially not the evangelicals I know who are genuinely tolerant. So they have to make up a narrative where we pretty much hate poor people and want to kill people all across the world and give money to corporations who are our true gods, and pretty much just stop short of calling us evil. We're just really, really misguided.
I've outlined where Leftist thought can emerge in critiquing Senator Obama's speech. If he portrayed Republican ideas on economics realistically, he could respond with something like "lower taxes work best in conjunction with these social programs." Instead, he just moves to energy, teachers, and healthcare, and the loose thinking just makes absolutely no sense to me, it looks like a grab bag of government funded waste waiting to happen. If he portrayed the conduct of foreign policy realistically, he could have had an argument I would have no quarrel with, which is whether we should be in Iraq in the first place (I would still argue we had to be there). He could have argued that American interests are better served any number of other ways.
But by not taking up the decision-making behind Iraq, he drops the best argument he had against Republican thinking. He just assumes the decision was wrong, and there's no mention of the good our soldiers - the ones he claims to represent - have done specifically there.
For a powerful contrast with this speech, look at President Bush's Second Inaugural Address, where the logic does add up. The true American promise is one we share, not one we grab. It has to be extended globally in some way. The world is a dangerous place, and building windmills for power while withdrawing troops from places terrorists are coalescing doesn't help. What does help is when we look beyond ourselves and reach out to others.
If you're liberal, and want to be realistic, think about how selfish Senator Obama's wishlist is.
- An Open Letter to All Political Scientists: Does the Obama Campaign Represent the Future of Politics?
- Senator David Vitter (R-LA) was a disgrace well before becoming a “Birther”
- Re: Irving Kristol and Partisan Generosity
- Yes, I support President Obama on Afghanistan, and you should too
- Links, “Critical of President Obama Edition,” 11/19/09
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
[…] The Politics of Denial: On Senator Obama’s Acceptance Speech … ashokkarra.com […]
Haha you weren’t kidding– very partisan. I don’t know enough about American politics to question the validity of these arguments, I’m sure they are fair criticisms. But haven’t these kind of posts got a danger of turning into “Essential Reading for Republican People”? :P
In the UK we’re mostly all routing for Obama, not that that’ll help him very much. Whatever you might say, having a black-liberal president in the white-house would do a world of the good for Americas international image. McCain is seen by the rest of the world as a continuation of the same administration. An administration that’s seen as morally corrupt and who’s behavior has been closely compared with that of Russia. Wasn’t the whole “Patriot Act” abomination a republican child?
Ashok,
An excellent take on the candidate of “change” as usual. I am glad that some one has the courage to say what needs to be said.
I don’t understand the European view point expressed above. Of course, I don’t elect a president based upon what other countries view as “progressive.” To vote for a president solely because he is a black liberal sounds awfully racist to me, as if the man only has merit because he is black. Maybe England, and Europe, needs to come to grips with their latent racism before they begin to lecture the United States on moral degradation.
One thing though, how could Obama have opposed the Iraq war right after 9/11? Didn’t we invade around 2003? Any way.….
Hi Joshua (or should I call you the American)?
I think you are twisting my words somewhat. I never said that Obama would make a “good” president because he is black, simply that America’s having a black president would go a long way to showing the rest of the world that the U.S really is the equal non-racist society that it claims to be. It is the U.S.A not Europe that has the reputation for latent racism. I also mentioned his being liberal as an important factor.….but that seems to have been ignored.
Does this mean that if I say “Hilary for Pres would be a great way to show the rest of the world that the U.S.A isnt sexist” That I am in-fact sexist?
Surely our leaders do not only lead-us but they represent us, no?
You Americans don’t live in a bubble, and sooner or later the general world HATE for the Bush/McCain administration is going to bite you in the ass.
This comment is directed toward Lawrence.
Don’t you think that a president (or any leader for that matter) should be chosen by his/her ability, intelligence, understanding of the office they are running for, and etc… rather than because they are black, female or liberal?
Politicians are all the same to me. I don’t trust someone who is a republican just because he/she is a republican nor would I trust a liberal or independent just because they are that either. People are inherently flawed. One person cannot run a country anyway, we all know that. Even many people cannot necessarily run a country.
And, it’s always best to remember that government was never created to take care of people, it was created to take care of itself.
One more thing: I, and many of my fellow Americans, don’t care what the world thinks about America. I know that I am doing the best I can to take care of my family, to be honest, fair and charitable and if “the world” is narrow minded enough to generalize America, then their opinions are uninformed and worthless.
I think you’d be surprised how informed other countries are about our politics, many of them more than the majority of Americans. Al Jazeera offers some of the best news you can find, along with international papers like the Times Herald Tribune.
Besides that, a major reason i call myself liberal is because the liberal system seems to be working in these countries that love Obama. How can you say that liberalism is completely wrong, when the UK has money twice as valuable than ours. The Euro, btw, is 50% more valuable. Economically, i think these other countries deserve our respect, cause it’ll be them bailing us out when McCain sells the rest of the US Dollar to China, ect…
Ah yes, the classic “liberalism works elsewhere” argument. Do you even have any idea what other countries are like? Let’s see, Europe’s average (along with almost all individual countries) GDP per capita, average living space, overall quality of life, among other factors are all worse in Europe. Not to mention unemployment and economic growth is terrible over there. Despite whatever WHO rankings have been published, people from countries with socialized healthcare flock to America for care. I personally know someone who lives in Ontario who has confirmed this at least in Canada’s sake.
And to Laurence.…the UK’s international image is not so great either, so let me ask you this: when it comes time to replace Gordon Brown, would you rather elect someone who will make third-world countries think that UK people are just dandy, but who has the potential to run your country into the ground economically and socially, or would you rather elect someone who will continue the hatred of your country, but allow economic growth to continue (slowly as it may be) and keep other important social factors in your country in a condition tolerable to all people?
I close my eyes and I can hear myself saying those same things months ago. Obama is a manufactured politician, groomed by experts and orchestrated by political heavy-hitters and special interests. They have invested heavily in this man and will do anything to see him win the election — that ain’t gonna happen.
My first visit to your blog. It’s very good — I shall be bookmarking it.
@ Laurence: You’re right, we Americans don’t live in a bubble. It might be better if we did. Endlessly playing cops of the world already got us “bit” once.
@sorilea
How can you not be concerned with our image internationally? After all through all the bullshit politics brings to the table, all we are is the image we present to the world. Are we are the gun toting redneck “I dont give a fuck what anyone thinks” nation that many republicans would have us be, or do we still believe in the “walk softly but carry a big stick” mentality of progress and diplomacy. If theres one thing that has been absent the past 8 years it is diplomacy. How do you explain the fact that until bush started his tour of europe and the middle east a while ago he hadnt set foot in the place where he sent our boys to die. Republicans talk negatively about government spending but then spent hundreds of millions of American tax dollars on shit like 50000 dollar cars that sit idle in parking lots in Iraq and other friviolus Halliburton spending that is only aimed at fattening more republican pockets. Whats doesnt make sense to me is peoples inability to realize when the government has it proverbial dick in all of our asses. I dont understand how people could possibly believe the shit that theyre fed and all the scare tactics and how we can sit back and watch as out government is run not for the populous who has to answer for its mistakes but instead for the less than one percent who actually benefit from it. how can you say that you have benefitted from this administration when we are the laughing stock of the rest of the world and more people hate us everyday. How can you not be for a change in the corrupt practices of our government which has become so misguided that it no longer has our best interests at heart.
@sorilea:
quote/
”.…I know that I am doing the best I can to take care of my family, to be honest, fair and charitable and if “the world” is narrow minded.…..“
/quote
That is slightly naive. Everyone in the world does that according to their own beliefs. They don’t have to be American! If by your logic doing your best and obeying your own ethical code is a green-light to behave how you like, then the Nazis should have been allowed to get on with it! You don’t think that the Nazi’s loved there families? Or that suicide bombers don’t believe themselves to be “fair” and “honest” in their actions?
Nazis are generally-speaking considered the arch-villains of history. Yet, no doubt they would match all of your criteria, at-least in their own minds. You don’t think that it’s “narrow minded” to think badly of the Nazi’s, do you?
I am not trying to suggest that the Nazi’s are comparable to the Americans, I’m just trying to show that hating the U’S doesn’t make us narrow minded, no matter how much you love your family.
@ Willy:
That’s utter crap, the NHS is very good and to suggest that people flock elsewhere is ridiculous. It’s one of the features that attracts the most people to this country.
The people that come to the U.S for medical treatment are generally the very rich. We English take immense pride in the NHS, we also have many private health-care practices available for those who wish to pay for them. That the U.S doesn’t provide free and universal health-care is frankly, disgusting.
“the UK’s international image is not so great either”
Our image has been sullied by the U.S! It’s our association with you that makes people dislike us.
Assuming he could retain a basic control of the economy then I would choose the first.
@ Angela: Ty :)
What I don’t understand is how the Republicans and the Bush Administration are being accused of abusing their power and are being called war-mongering gun-toters when there was actually human rights violations occuring in Iraq (any democrat will tell you that Suddam needed to be removed from power) when we faced the same situation when Clinton decided to get the U.N. to bomb Yugoslavia. A total of four liberals protested this. Also, nevermind that Clinton, everybody’s favorite former president, ordered the dropping of over 1.3 million pounds of bombs between 1999–2000. Where was the uprise of liberal protest then? The point I’m trying to make is, conservative or liberal, you’re dense if you think it makes any difference when it comes to corruption. I am for the change in the corrupt practices of our government, but I don’t think that Obama is the answer nor do I believe he’s capable of making the ‘change’ he so eagerly preaches. I could never vote for a man that has retracted every campaign promise that made him desirable at the beginning. I’m sorry, it takes more than a bunch of pretty words (stolen from other people) and a bunch of empty promises to get me to vote for you.
The thing that sullies the way people look at the U.K. is only partially due to the U.S. How about… treat muslims better?
Also: A new report says one in four facilities operated by Britain’s government-run National Health Service isn’t complying with basic hygiene standards.
Also: Unions are agitating for higher wages, even as inflation rose at a 3.3 percent annual rate in May, above the 3 percent upper limit of the Bank of England’s comfort zone.
When the time came to decide whether US troops should be sent to Iraq, the vote was almost unanimously in support. If I’m not mistaken, I believe Obama was one of them. One of the few dissenters? Ron Paul.
The quality of life in the US is actually about the same as most other industrialized nations, even the ones where health care is universal.
Actually, Obama has been against the war in Iraq since 2002, voting against it. But, for the most part, there was overwhelming consent from both parties: Clinton, Edwards, Kerry are among some of the big names. But… granted, it was a Republican majority in congress at the time.
@ Laurence: Let me assure you, the reason for your country’s tarnished image is not primarily its association with the US. The biggest reason is because the rest of Europe is slowly becoming a bunch of Muslim nations with numbers there on the rise faster than ever before. The UK has done certain things to deter this, even if it just in attitude toward Muslims. This is the biggest reason, among many others, not the least of which, admittedly, is the association with us.
BTW, the fact that you care more about your country’s international image than you do about its well-being ruins your credibility in my eyes.
@ Sec: I’m with you there Sec. The way Muslims are treated in this country is a disgrace in some cases. Organizations like the BNP make us all look bad.
The Unions are all ways looking for better wages, that’s their job. I’m woefully ignorant on the economy, but I understood that is was problems with sub-prime mortgage investments in the U.S that gave our economy it’s issues in the first place!
@willy: “The biggest reason is because the rest of Europe is slowly becoming a bunch of Muslim nations with numbers there on the rise faster than ever before.”
People like you make me sick. BTW exchange “Europe” for “US” and “Muslim” for “Black”.
And you could be posting on a KKK forum.
People like YOU are the reason that U.S is hated by the rest of the world. I’m guessing the chances of you voting for Obama are roughly 0. Your obvious Racism reveals that you can’t even start to see the big picture.
Um… wow. That connection is the last desperate attempt for you to point fingers elsewhere?
There are hate crimes everywhere in every country, some more varied than others. But, despite what your liberal media probably tells you, the extreme racists such as the KKK are a minority in our country.
Now, when you take the whole quote, and not just part of it, it changes the context:
“The biggest reason is because the rest of Europe is slowly becoming a bunch of Muslim nations with numbers there on the rise faster than ever before. The UK has done certain things to deter this, even if it just in attitude toward Muslims. This is the biggest reason, among many others, not the least of which, admittedly, is the association with us.”
In terms you can understand, he basically said the exact same thing I did; ‘The UK has done certain things to deter this, even if it just in attitude toward Muslims.’ To simplify it, the UK treats Muslims bad and that’s why the UK looks bad.
And if the people of the UK are, by and large, like you (which I doubt they are) then how does it feel that the majority of the people of America can own up to the fact that their country is going through a hard time and we’ve made some mistakes while you and probably a few other people decide to blame all of your problems on America? That seems pretty childish to me.
@sec & Willy: perhaps I miss-understood you, if that is the case then I apologize. I interpreted “this” in “deter this” to be the rising number of Muslims in Britain. And therefore thought that you were implying that the UK’s only saving grace, is its attempts to discourage Muslims from living in Britain. I’d like to hear Willy confirm whether it’s the rising population or it’s treatment that he feels to be the problem.
“And if the people of the UK are, by and large, like you (which I doubt they are)”
Can anyone say they represent the majority of their country? I’m just a person with my own opinions. But I can honestly say that most British blame the U.S for our bad image internationally. I wasn’t aware that the British “issues” with Muslims had become common knowledge around the rest of the world.
“how does it feel that the majority of the people of America can own up to the fact that their country is going through a hard time and we’ve made some mistakes while you and probably a few other people decide to blame all of your problems on America”
How does it feel? Pretty good actually, it’s always nice to have someone to blame things on. Although I object to the “all of your problems part”. I freely admitted that we treat Muslims poorly and this is our own fault. Also I said “woefully ignorant” referring to the UK’s economic problems, to show that I wasn’t at-all sure who is to blame for the UK’s economic problems. I was hoping you would enlighten me, rather than insult me.
I’m equally to blame, but it strikes me as sad that these things always turn into pissing contest. It seems to become less about who can provide the most logical argument, and more about who can put the other one down better. Instead of trying to learn from each other, we simply try to be “right”, so we can convince ourselves we don’t have to.
It was probably wrong of me to go off on one against Willy , whether he was being racist or not. And maybe Sec is right and the U.S doesn’t have any bearing on the problems of the UK (although I don’t agree with this point of view).
But when the debate turns to calling each other “childish” and “desperate” and saying things like “in terms you understand”. It stops being enjoyable.
So I’m out, you win.
USA pwns UK once again. Take that red-coats!
j/k
:)
lol
Hey Laurence, just to confirm I wasn’t necessarily saying Muslims are a problem nor their treatment was a problem. I’m not saying it isn’t a problem either, but the original intent of the message was just to say that the issues you mentioned with Muslims in the UK are largely the cause of international opinion of the UK. Anyways I think what we can all agree on is that this argument has gone and will go nowhere.
Almost everyone is aware that BS stands for
Bachelor of Science, as well as the more
vulgar expression. Not all know that PhD can also stand for “piled higher and deeper”. You, sir, have just earned your advanced degree.
Well, once McCain is elected and gets rid of net neutrality, at least I won’t ever have to read this sort of crap anymore.
Look up on youtube:
songbird mccain
mccain’s mansions
no end in sight
bill moyers big oil
Do some research on Sarah Palin who’s gonna be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Personally I would vote for a third party if I was certain that McCain was going to lose. For now, Obama is just the lessor of 2 evils. Oh, and yes Laurence, the patriot act abomination that takes away American’s right to privacy is a Republican child.