In politics, there’s significant value in the ability to speak on particular issues with moral authority. There’s also a well-deserved penalty for being a hypocrite. Case in point: McCain-Palin calling Barack Obama a socialist.
First, let’s get this out of the way: Barack Obama IS a socialist. He wants the government to take money from those according to their ability and redistribute it - “spread it around” - to those according to their need. Or as the rock group Ten Years After put it about ten years after Obama was born and before domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was washed up: “Tax the rich, feed the poor, ’til there are no rich no more.”
Obama is a self-admitted modern-day “Robbing” Hood - stealing from the “rich” (anybody with a job) and giving to the poor. So the charge that he’s a socialist is not only relevant, but accurate.
That being said, John McCain has little room to talk. In fact, it’s a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Oops, sorry, I mean non-white.
When you support the government taking $700 billion from taxpayers and redistributing it to Wall Street, that’s socialism. When the government nationalizes the banking industry, that’s socialism. When you say you want the government to take $300 billion from taxpayers to “prop up” home values, that’s socialism.
So not only does John McCain not have the moral authority to criticize Barack Obama for being the socialist he is, John McCain comes off looking like a hypocrite for criticizing Barack Obama for being the socialist he is. And in the minds many voters, it’s worse to be a political hypocrite than a left-wing socialist.
Unfortunately, Sarah Palin isn’t positioned much better in this department. Unlike her coming-out speech at the Republican National Convention, Gov. Palin is now playing the social engineering gender card aggressively on the stump, telling an audience in Henderson, Nevada, this week that “only our side has a woman on the ticket.” Can you just imagine the backlash from conservatives if Obama declared publicly that “only our side has a black on the ticket”? You see, hypocrisy again.
Shouldn’t voters judge candidates by their experience, philosophy and character rather than the color of their skin or chromosome make-up?
And how many hockey moms wear $2,500 Valentino jackets paid for by the Republican National Committee? Or go on $75,000 shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus, and $49,000 shop-’til-you-drop excursions to Saks Fifth Avenue? And what difference does it make that the clothing will be donated to a “charitable purpose” after the election? Hasn’t anyone on the McCain campaign ever heard of J.C. Penny’s?
One final Palin note: The Alaska governor’s selection as McCain’s running mate was primarily designed to shore up John McCain’s lagging support among conservatives and narrow the “enthusiasm gap” between his and Barack’s campaigns. As the saying goes, “mission accomplished.” But while social conservatives have every reason to continue supporting the veep candidate who supports their pro-life/anti-gay marriage agenda, limited-government Goldwater conservatives have growing reasons to be wary.
For myself, red flags went up the minute I read that Gov. Palin told the Alaska teachers union in 2006 that she opposed school vouchers. But now she’s embracing the Left’s government-imposed gender equity pay schemes and praising Title IX – a liberal 1970s era “anti-discrimination” law which has literally wiped out many high school and college sports for boys. Take from one to give to another. Social engineering by government.
I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to have concerns that Sarah Palin’s commitment to a true, limited-government conservative philosophy might just be a mile wide and an inch deep. It could be that she talks the talk, but wouldn’t really walk the walk. She might just be all hat and no cattle. You know, like President Bush.
Uh-oh.
Posted on October 23rd, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
Well said.
By the way, do you think these early voting numbers a reflection of those of us who agree with you? I know I am having a tough decision between Barr and McCain - and I was thinking a lot of the turnout (or lack on the GOP side) has to do with Dems being enthusiastic and Republicans torn. The more it looks like Obama will win easily the more tempting it is to vote for Barr to make a point.
Absolutely. Yesterday I would have voted for McCain. If I voted today, however, it’d be Barr. Fortunately, I don’t like voting early anyway. But I’m truly torn this year solely because we’re in a “swing” state (Nevada). But if I was free to cast a vote purely on principle and conscience without worrying about political reality and the lesser or two evils argument, it’d be Barr in a heartbeat.
YES!
Please vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. You are right. McCain does not have a chance, and why vote for McCain after all?
He voted for the bailout, just like Obama. And both McCain and Obama voted for US government investment in big commercial banks, which is socialist, Socialism, maybe even Communism. Why not send a message to both parties that it is time to vote on principles? YES, we should!
Only Bob Barr is moral enough and conservative enough to deal with the issue of housing, Wall Street, and the rest of the current mess. He has not taken a cent from Fannie or Freddie or from any of the Wall Street firms that profit from the bailout. And Bob Barr has the support of Rep. Ron Paul, who did so well in the Republican primary debates.
Here’s Bob’s Web site: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
So there goes the election to Barry and the gang of three will completely re-engineer this country so that gun laws will change, the fairness doctrine will be reinstated, taxes will go up, the supreme court will go hard left, and individual freedoms will diminish even further. This is all for the purpose of principle, and for as much as it is a very noble cause, this could in turn be the demise of the entire conservative movement for a very long time. We have shown no unity, and now we will lose to a supermajority that thinks they have the right to do whatever they want.. Our concerns and voices will be just like farts in a wind. All we can hope for is that “they” blow it up so we can come in and try to fix it again. May God have mercy on our stupid follies and our souls.
Matt, I don’t think you realize it, but posts such as this do nothing but push folks such as myself further into the other camp. It’s not OUR fault the Republican Party keeps nominating such lousy candidates, yet you seem to think we’re somehow obligated to keep rewarding the party for foisting such nominal nominees on us. The bottom line is that it’s not my obligation to vote for John McCain just to keep Barack Obama out of office. It’s John McCain’s responsibility to EARN my vote. It is not to be taken for granted. Now if you really want those of us still on the fence between Barr and McCain, tell us specifically how and when John McCain made a pitch for the Ron Paul/libertarian-leaning voters. Chapter and verse, please.
Matt - first off, as Chuck said, our votes do need to be earned. But if I really thought it was going to be close, I’d probably hold my nose and vote for McCain. That said, it is increasingly looking like a landslide and I would rather make the point and vote for Barr in that case.
Anyway, don’t forget Carter brought us Reagan.
I’ll admit, I cast my absentee vote for McCain, largely because of his running mate (up to that point it was going to Bob Barr). When you put the candidates’ track records against what they say, Sarah Palin’s is by far the best of the four. Yes, she’s done a couple of things I haven’t agreed with, but on balance her record in Alaska is a good one, and pretty consistent with what she says (there’s a concept). Based on her record, she’s pro 2nd Amendment, she’s far more fiscally responsible than Dubya, and although she is deeply religious and pro life, she doesn’t seem to wear it on her sleeve as much as some other politicians, leading more by example (which I appreciate). On balance, not too shabby. Add to that the fact that she’s a gifted communicator and the cameras love her, and you have someone who gives some hope to those of us who actually believe in limited government.
I’ll admit I’m not as bothered by her stance on vouchers as you are, but I would ask her, if not vouchers, what would you do about education? What would really disturb me would be if she were to say “no child left behind” was a really good idea. I’m disappointed with her stance on Title IX, but her playing up her gender should surprise no one. As far as the clothing thing goes, I personally find the whole thing stupid (shades of the Nancy Reagan white house dishes fiasco), and I blame a lot of this on her handlers. On the other hand, if she wasn’t wearing those kinds of clothes, the other side would just be citing it as an example that she’s white trash, so either way she’d be catching hell.
I think it;s waaay premature to assume Sarah Palin’s another Dubya. But, as SF talk show host Lee Rodgers wisely counsels, never fall in love with a politician. They’ll break your heart every time. Assume they’re all scumbags and be happy when they’re not. That said, I’m breaking with that and giving Sarah the benefit of the doubt.
For now.