THE 2008 ELECTION CHOICES: THE UNTEACHABLE vs. THE UNTHINKABLE
THE 2008 ELECTION CHOICES: THE
UNTEACHABLE vs. THE UNTHINKABLE
By
Ken Eliasberg
In his regular column in Townhall.com (6/5/08) Thomas Sowell, a Hoover Institute scholar who I admire and frequently cite, summed up my feelings about our 2008 presidential choices as follows: “[N]ot since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When Election Day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.” Mort Sahl, a favorite of mine during the period of my blissful, liberal ignorance, (i.e. the ‘60s) described an earlier election (1996) in this manner: “There were four million people in the Colonies and we had Jefferson and Franklin. Now we have over 200 million and the two top guys are Clinton and Dole. What can you draw from this? Darwin was wrong!” I can only imagine what he might say of the 2008 dynamic duo — tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. Actually, it’s worse than that, Obama is not dumb, he’s dangerous (and, over the next 4 years, America is going to find out just how dangerous he is, although the magnitude of that danger may not be fully revealed for a decade or 2 — if we’re lucky).
I think most of you know that John McCain was not just not my first choice, he came close to being my last, edging out Ron Paul by a very slight margin (only because I thought Paul, while quite bright, was certifiably screwy). While it is true that McCain has the virtue of being decisive, he also has the vice of all too frequently being decisively wrong. You know the old saying — frequently wrong but never in doubt. I can’t think of a major piece of legislation with his name on it that I supported. I thought McCain-Feingold was possibly the worst (and most counterproductive; the libs were violating it while it was barely off the drafting board) piece of legislation to come out of Congress (and that’s saying something since I feel we are only safe when Congress is not in session). McCain-Kennedy was amnesty, no matter how hard you try to put lipstick on that pig. And McCain-Lieberman endeavors to come up with a man-made solution to a problem that may not be man made. And I think that it is only appropriate that we establish the nature of the problem before we bankrupt ourselves in search of what might be an inappropriate, or even an unnecessary, solution. And, the gang of 14 was also a frustrating effort to block the assertion of Republican power. All these muscle flexing efforts to demonstrate McCain’s decisive bipartisanship credentials, i.e. “the Maverick” strikes again! In short, I have always felt that John McCain was a decent and courageous man. I have always thought of him as a patriot - a man who genuinely loves his country. But even these qualities would not be enough for me to support him. Why not? Because I also thought that not only was his judgment fundamentally flawed, but that he was not sufficiently flexible to grow. In short, I believed, and still believe, that John McCain lends credence to the old saw that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks (particularly when you were not dealing with a particularly gifted dog to begin with).
And this feeling was abundantly strengthened as I watched him run one of the truly stupidest campaigns that I have ever witnessed. Should Obama win it will be by default; his people, while less than really impressive, managed to paper over all of his very serious and substantial flaws, while McCain’s people were either unable or unwilling to provide any sort of guidance to “Mr. Maverick.” What did he do wrong? Almost everything. The better question would be what did he do right? As I pointed out in a previous column, he didn’t seem to be doing much of anything while Obama and Hillary were beating each other up. Then, he foolishly refused to attack Obama’s character (through his disgusting associations with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko et al). Indeed, for a while, he even refused to let his surrogates do so (recall his indignation over some supporters in North Carolina who went after Obama). Not only is this the mother’s milk of politics, it is where Obama is seriously vulnerable (and deservedly so). Then he came out and inappropriately savaged Chris Cox, suggested he would replace him with Andrew Coumo (hellooo — Coumo is not just a Democrat, he was up to his ears in the entire affordable housing mess). When asked who he would appoint as Secretary of the Treasury, did he name Mitt Romney? No, he hinted at Warren Buffet, an Obama supporter! What a guy! What a schmuck!! Moving right along, the Maverick then indicated that he would reach out for Al Gore to deal with what many perceive to be a non existent global warming problem (and if it were (or is) Al Gore is not the guy I would reach out for, notwithstanding all his blather on this subject — why not? because I think he is a doofus). Finally, the straight talk machine announced to the whole world that he was giving up in Michigan, a battle ground state. While I question his decision to give up a key state without a fight, I find mind boggling his decision to publicize the event. Why? Because it is a serious admission of weakness, if not defeat. Also, because you have in effect, abandoned your Republican supporters in Michigan, leaving them with the distinct impression that, not only is their State lost, but that you are in grand retreat across the board. Finally, why announce it, just do it? Didn’t you criticize Obama for announcing that he might take it upon himself to violate Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty? Didn’t you suggest that you don’t announce such things, you just do them. How does proclaiming your withdrawal from Michigan differ in effect? Quite simply, it doesn’t! It is just another example of your pathetically poor judgment.
Finally, 2 other points demonstrating self sabotage: McCain early on appeared to disqualify himself on the economy by pointing out that it was not his strong suit. Unfortunately, within a matter of weeks the economy became the central issue in the campaign. And then there was his massively inappropriate use of Sarah Palin, who could have been his ace in the hole; she brought excitement to the base, which, prior to her appearance, was conspicuous in its absence. He didn’t prepare her, he didn’t use her very effectively, and, through his ineptitude, she became the object of ridicule rather than the tremendous asset that she could have been.
Forgive my intemperance, but I never suffered fools gladly, and the passage of time has not softened my approach to stupidity or left-wingers (but I repeat myself). As I have oft noted, I don’t like to lose, but what I cannot abide is losing because of my own blunders — particularly when the stakes are so high, i.e. the survival of Western Civilization. What has kept me going in my support of McCain? America, Sarah Palin, the thought of a Barack Obama presidency, and, my grandchildren. Or as Sowell put it in the column cited above, after alluding to his having stayed home in 1972 rather than vote for either candidate: “[T]his year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world — Iran — is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb. The point when they get the bomb will be the point of no return. Iran’s nuclear bomb will be the terrorist’s nuclear bomb — and they can make 9/11 look like child’s play.” Sowell continues: “At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure — at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job. Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no brainer.” That expresses my feeling in as succinct and precise manner as possible. I simply could not allow myself to abandon the field — even when my leader chose to make the fight almost impossibly difficult — to an inexperienced, unqualified, racist, radical left-winger, i.e. THE UNTHINKABLE part of this discussion, Barack Obama. Having discussed him at length in previous columns, I shall not burden you with repetition. Moreover, should he become your president, as you will undoubtedly see in time, he will confirm my worst fears.
There could be but 2benefits to be derived from an Obama presidency: (1) perhaps it will end Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects and drive the Clintons off the stage, and (2) possibly it will make it more difficult for race baiters on the left to make their case that America is a racist country (but I doubt it; if they abandon race baiting, what other excuse would they have to explain the failure to make progress). After all, how racist can we be if we elect a black to the highest office in the land.