I am beginning to wonder if my bias against John McCain is blinding me. What led me to this thought? The simple fact that I heard the same saddleback civil forum that everyone else did, and yet It seems like I am the only one who thinks that Barack Obama did well, and in large part did better than John McCain. I thought his short answers sounded like there was almost no thought put into them. All guts, no brains. For Obama, the abortion issue was the major stumbling block as I saw it, in large part because of this statement “It’s above my pay grade”. That statement will come to haunt him, that much I can guarantee. Beyond that there really wasn’t anything I saw wrong with his statements, and that he came across as genuine. Senator McCain on the Other hand, looked wooden from the start. I have used that wording several times, because it fits, He looked kinda uncomfortable up there. His constant falling back on Campaign rhetoric made him sound like less of a man and more of a politician, in the negative sense, like he was a bad car salesman, trying to sell me a lemon. Ya know, speak forcefully but not really say much. Empty rhetoric, but everywhere I look, I am seeing stories mentioning McCain’s saddleback triumph.
I don’t get it. McCain wasn’t that good. Is it because Obama struck a conversational tone, and McCain didn’t? Is it because Obama gave measured responses and McCain blurted his answers out? Or to make it sound less negative, did McCain score points because he was blunt and to the point? My thought was that Obama was better because he spoke with warmth and heart, and gave the impression that he searched out every answer with his heart and spoke from that place, while McCain very much did not.
Ah well. If I am alone then I am alone. I should not be concerned about that portion of it, I need no company in my opinion.
I do have to speak to one related thought about this saddleback civil forum. I have looked around and heard several people saying that Senator McCain somehow cheated, and heard the questions beforehand, and possibly even Barack Obama’s answers as well. I am not sure this is anything more than Unhappy Obama supporters who think McCain did better than Barack. That is silly. It makes no sense to cry about it like that after the fact. It lays bear the heart of people who feel like they lost something they should have had. Does it matter? I have to ask you, does it really truly matter? If you back your candidate, back him with strength, not weakness. Do not say your rival cheated. Even if he did. And if he did, what of it? Neither man will be in that situation again. The Debates will lay bear the truth of how and where these gentlemen’s hearts lay, and show where the real truth of who the better speaker is. Who the better public face of the American government really is. Because that is what this is. Not who the better leader is, but who the better salesman is. Who can pitch what he wants to do for America.
One last thing. I did hear that McCain’s story about the guard drawing the cross was lifted from the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Book “Gulag Archipelago”, and that Senator McCain is a fan of Solzhenitsyn. In the Book “Faith of my Fathers”, he had a story about one guard being nice to him and letting him lie down after being forced to stand for several days. This story with the cross was not in the book. Every detail of the story up to the guard drawing the cross in the ground that McCain told on the saddleback stage was told as it was in the “faith”, but he never told that part of the story before. No Cross story. Why?
My guess is he thought this would fit well in the church and sound good, so he used it. This annoys me. I’m a fan of Solzhenitsyn, to lift a story from Gulag Archipelago and throw it into a story like it happened to him is unethical. It’s wrong for anyone to lift someone else’s story and take it and try to make it your own, as if you lived it yourself. If you stole someone else’s written word and tried to make them your own, without attribution, you would be called a plagiarist. What do you call a man who steals a dead man’s story and Pretends it is his?
Asshole. Thief. Hypocrite. And that ladies and gentlemen makes him Ideal presidential fodder. You need to be all those things to be President today, at least a Republican President. It’s been that way for every Republican president since, and including Reagan. I guess that’s why he was called successful here. He passed the Asshole test with flying colours. That’s the only way I can see he won.
A Video for you, from Saddleback on Saturday. It is Answers like this that led me to believe that Obama was better than McCain: (video changed 1/11/11, the original video disappeared when youtube deleted the account of the owner of the original video)
That’s it for me. Later!
Today’s Nugget, From Newspeak: Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties – 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. – In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all. Thomas Jefferson