Tag: John McCain

Reagan Gahagan’s Interesting News Stories, post-election edition

It is now time to nail McCain to the wall for being a closet democrat. Let’s get this party started:

Interesting pledge of allegiance battle

Liberals in NASA promoting the global warming hoax get busted

(in my opinion, the first order of business for the next Republican president should be to fire every single registered democrat working for the federal government in any capacity, most importantly for the CIA, FBI, or NASA. Bush made a crucial mistake by not doing this. see the scores of secrets leaked to the New York Times).

It appears that the worldwide backlash to the global warming hoax (new socialism) has begun.

McCain’s autopsy

A reader writes:

Did you hear this? It was on NPR the morning after the election. I’ve listened to it a few times, and out of all the commentary I’ve heard and read so far on the election, this is the one piece that keeps coming back to me.

If Weaver is trying to make it sound like the McCain campaign made a mistake when they let him get away, mission accomplished as far as I’m concerned.

I heard another commentator today say something to the extent that McCain made two huge mistakes:

1) Suspending his campaign to tackle the economic crisis.
2) Selecting Palin.

On the second point, this commentator didn’t seem to be any sort of Palin-hater. Rather, he said that one of the strong selling points of the McCain campaign is (was) experience, and that McCain’s attacks on Obama had been most effective when they focused on Barack’s relative lack of experience. The commentator asserts, however, that McCain’s ability to aggressively and compellingly attack Obama on this point was substantially weakened when he selected a running mate that also lacked experience.

The commentator also said McCain took a gamble on suspending his campaign and lost, but that suspending the campaign wasn’t a bad idea outright. Rather, McCain just didn’t capitalize on it in the appropriate way, and he came across looking desperate rather than confident and Presidential.

The BBC apparently has some serious Palin-haters, which surprised me. Have you been over to their web site since the election? They’ve been filling the front page with clips showing Palin calling her detractors “jerks,” and also the clip from Fox news where O’Reilly’s correspondent claims Palin doesn’t know which three countries are in NAFTA, or that Africa is a continent and not a country. Putting my personal thoughts about Palin aside, I must say I found these editorial selections to be rather surprising coming from the BBC, which usually seems fairly staid an conservative.

Anyway, all this is to say that I think the real problem with McCain and his campaign probably was this his strategists (and McCain himself) made many, many disastrous mistakes in working with and handling the media. I bet the campaign will literally become a case study in political science and perhaps PR classes on how not to work with the media.

In contrast, Obama’s handlers just hit the freakin’ media-spin ball out of the park, man. Among other things, they really get web2.0 and its power. There was a short piece from a NYTimes Bits blog about how their YouTube commercials were viewed a bazillion times, and, based on how much money the equivalent would have cost using MSM, they estimate the use of YouTube saved the campaign tens of millions of dollars.

My Reply Part I:

There is some serious infighting on the GOP side, which tends to happen when groups lose an alpha male, or the new alpha male is weak. That was definitely the case with the McCain campaign. There is a theory that Mitt Romney’s little army of Mormons was absorbed into the McCain camp and have been systematically sabotaging the campaign ever since. I mean, it’s beyond ridiculous. You’d never hear about anonymous staffers hating on a Bush-Cheney campaign, much less Barack Obama, or Clinton. The other theory is that it is McCain’s people and he is really being a jerk because everyone came to see Sarah and she raised 100 million for the RNC and he got zero for his campaign.

I actually tend to believe the former theory. Another staffer (Steve Biegun) have come up and put on the record that Palin knows full and well about Africa and follows issues in the Sudan and Egypt and Somalia. That staffer are named, the ankle biters are not. In general, I tend to believe those that go on the record over those that remain anonymous. Christians pay attention to the middle east, and I find it hard to imagine that your Todd Palin works for BP all your life and you don’t know where Nigeria, Libya, and other oil rich African countries are. I know people that are the reddest necks in the world, that barely made it through high school, that worked in Nigeria. I’m willing to bet Todd and Sarah know some people like that too. I think the NAFTA thing is equally ridiculous and hard to swallow, particularly since she is governor of a border state and negotiated a pipeline deal with a Canadian company.

Sarah was calling the ankle biters jerks, not critics.

Look, she has enough gaffes as it is by which you can judge her. I’m just saying don’t take this post-election stuff too seriously, b/c it is probably someone trying to make Mitt look smarter by knocking her down.

I supported Mitt in the primary but now think he is pretty much a bitter jerk and I won’t support him in the future, regardless as to whether these guys were his aides. He pretty much sandbagged it for McCain. I agree with you regarding web 2.0, but Howard Dean had all that fundraising too and look where it got him. Dean pretty much took a shiv to the Clintons with the Florida and Michigan thing, which like it or not would have swung this whole thing back to the dynasty. And like it or not, the honest thing to do would have been to let Florida count and let Obama be put on the Michigan ballot in the first place. So, all the web 2.0 stuff is fine and dandy but you need a good candidate and specifically Obama needed some love from party to make it happen.

Reply Part II:

The postmortems are all fine and dandy but seriously, given the gift wrapping Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke gave to the democrats with this horrible, horrible bailout, I can’t come up with a hypothetical situation in which McCain wins.

Sure, McCain could have voted ‘present’ on the bailout like Barack Obama did, but I can’t imagine that would win him any converts. I would have preferred that he vote against the bailout and cite it as another difference between him and George W Bush, just like the surge, election reform, torture, greenhouse gases reform, but that would have required McCain wanting to win the election rather than save face for his fellow Senators and keep the dudes in the back (i.e. the bankers) happy. Even if he does come out against the bailout, the press would pin the stocks dropping squarely on McCain. Instead, we are coerced into spending more money in a year on the bailout than the entire gulf war, and the stocks drop like a rock anyway. So, nope, I can’t talk myself into a McCain win.

Republicans will never out-Democrat Democrats, so when Republicans act like Democrats you might as well vote for the Democrats.
Make sense?

The reason why the bailout didn’t pass the House the first time is that a majority of constituents like me went nuts and kept the phones ringing. From what I hear, reps that voted no were strong-armed by GOP party leadership into changing their position. My rep, John Culberson voted no both times because he has a pair.

On Palin, I can’t see any VP pick that brought more to the table. That is not a plaudit for Palin. Bobby Jindal wanted nothing to do with it and he just got elected (Jan 08) anyway. Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, nah. Mike Huckabee? Maybe you win Iowa, maybe Virginia, I doubt it. I think most anyone excited about Huckabee (lower class whites, evangelical Christians) were voting for Palin, too. The media wanted McCain to pick Lieberman, but that’s just because the media wanted Barack Obama to have a 50 state landslide. Jerks.

As for Weaver, when McCain ditched him his candidacy was considered toast and everyone was writing up how great Guiliani was. Many claim that ditching Weaver was the one thing that turned around McCain’s candidacy in 2007. So, he seems like a nice guy, but take it with a grain of salt.

Congratulations to President Elect Obama

The Democrats and President-elect Barack Obama have the conch shell now.  Barack Obama ran an incredible, disciplined campaign, outclassed a more moderate juggernaut,  but ethically challenged Clinton dynasty.  I think Barack Obama is a good person with a redistributionist philosophy that is wrong for America.  But he was disarming enough to persuade an overwhelming majority to trust him anyway.  That is no small feat, given some of his natural handicaps, and he deserves credit for that.  I didn’t vote for Obama, but I respect him as an adversary, and wish that more politicians on our side had his intelligence and genuine charm.  John McCain’s loss once again showed that you need to provide not only fear of the other candidate, but need a compelling reason to vote for  your candidate and party.  McCain openly stated his ignorance of economic issues, and though Barack Obama voted “present” when the bailout was passed, McCain couldn’t distance himself enough from George W Bush.

Will President Obama overreach with nationalization of industry as President Bush did with the Iraqi war?  Most likely.  George W Bush demonized Islamic terrorism, Barack Obama demonizes Exxon Mobile.  Like Bush, Obama will be a man of his word.  Just as Bush promised a tax cut and stuck to it, Obama promises to bankrupt any energy company that builds a new power plant.   I expect that he will also keep those important promises to spread the wealth.

His speeches are very uplifting, and many people find that voting for a young, charming, intelligent, biracial candidate makes them feel good about themselves.  Tomorrow people will find that not much is changed about humans and their behavior.  The planet will not heal starting tomorrow.  Neighborhoods that were high crime today will be the same tomorrow.  People who are struggling to pay the bills will not have a free pass starting January 21st, 2009.  How long will the honeymoon last based on such lofty promises?

Being lifted up is great only if you know you have a safe landing.  Good luck, Barack Obama, you will need it.

Cool Nobama bumper sticker

‘I’ll keep my freedom, my guns,
and my money, you can keep THE CHANGE’.

Vote for McCain/Palin

Delinking Health Insurance from Employment wouldn’t be all bad.

A brief article on the history of why the healthcare system got to where it is, and why the McCain plan is actually the only one of the two (between his and Obama’s) that can truly accomplish anything:  by putting more control back in the hands of the consumer instead of simply shifting control from EVIL Insurance companies to the ALL-LOVING Federal Government.

Mr. Jacoby is very explicit in explaining the history of the problem:

During World War II, federal wage controls barred employers from raising their workers’ salaries, but said nothing about fringe benefits. So firms competing for employees at government-restricted wages began offering medical insurance to sweeten employment offers. Even sweeter was that employers could deduct those benefits as business expenses, yet employees didn’t have to report them as taxable income. For a while the IRS resisted that interpretation, but Congress eventually enshrined the tax-exempt status of employer-based medical insurance in law.

Result: a radical shift in the way Americans paid for medical care. With health benefits tax-free if they were employer-supplied, tens of millions of Americans were soon signing up for medical insurance through work. As tax rates rose, so did the incentive to keep expanding health benefits. No longer was medical insurance reserved for major expenditures like surgery or hospitalization. Americans who would never think of using auto insurance to cover tune-ups and oil changes grew accustomed to having their medical insurer pay for yearly physicals, prescriptions, and other routine expenses.

Now, I actually don’t agree with the part of McCain’s proposal that taxes employer-based coverage.  I’m more interested in parity (making sure that individuals get the same tax cut), than I am a punitive approach.  But it at least cuts at the core of the problem: the individual has been left out of the process for far too long.  It’s actually just a little too harsh.

I preferred the plan that President Bush proposed in a State of the Union address a few years ago (seems like so long ago), and that was a tax-credit (and a pretty sizable one, if I recall) for those participating in Consumer-Driven (High-Deductible) Health Plans.  That would have accomplished a lot as far as getting more control of costs back in the hands of the consumer without giving a Democratic contender ammunition to call the Republican contender a tax-hiker.

(Mirrored on gcfin.com.)