About Me

Name: Will Malven
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Voting "No" on John McCain: "The Time Has Come, The Walrus Said, To Talk of Many Things..."

Posted by Will Malven on Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:22:58 PM
"I am the Walrus, Goo, Goo, G'joob."

A visit to Alice's Wonderland and John Lennon's acid-trip inspired song, "I am the Walrus," seem appropriate when discussing Republican candidate John McCain.

In my not so humble opinion, John McCain is as crazy as Bogey's Captain Queeg mumbling about "the strawberries" in The Caine Mutiny. He proved it beyond any doubt in Wednesday night's Republican debate held at the Ronald Reagan Museum in Simi Valley.

McCain's repetitive use of the words "time tables" was eerily reminiscent of Captain Queeg's obsession with "the strawberries." Even more disturbing was McCain's continual reference to Mitt Romney's statement about not wanting "the enemy...wait[ing] in the weeds until you're going to be gone." McCain's references were excessive, bordering on obsessive. McCain had the intense glare and the grim frozen smile down cold, the only thing missing was the rattling steel marbles as he rambled on and on about "waiting in the weeds."

ABC's Robin Roberts asked Mit Romney, during an interview last April:
"Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?"
He responded:
"Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government."
Romney was further asked:
"So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?"
To which he responded:
"Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition."
I doubt that Romney could have been any more unequivocal in his opposition to "timetables" as McCain is attempting to define them and as they were generally being used at the time. No objective observer could possibly interpret Romney's statement as being in favor of withdrawal, or of supporting the institution of an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal.

In fact, my response to McCain would simply have been to ask him if he believes that war, any war, should be conducted without any planning whatsoever. I would ask him if he believed that America should conduct the war without consulting with the democratically elected representative of the people for whom we are supposed to be fighting. I would have asked him if he believed that setting goals for the training of Iraqi military and police forces is inappropriate; if he believed that we should not be applying any diplomatic pressure on the Maliki Administration at all. McCain's answers would have been quite revealing.

Frankly, the thought of McCain as President has always been a bit unnerving, but now it simply scares the bejeebers out of me. The thought of giving that kind of power to a man that mentally unstable is absolutely unacceptable.

My other problem with John McCain is that he is not a Conservative. He is pro-life and he is pro-war, but in every other category he is as Liberal as any Democrat.

On taxation he now claims that the reason he voted against the "Bush tax-cuts" was because they were not off-set by spending cuts, but even a cursory examination of the Congressional record proves that his opposition was based on his belief they were tax-cuts for the wealthy. His exact statement was:
Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Conference Report on the Reconciliation bill. I do so after having expressed hope that the progress we made in the Senate bill to scale back the benefits going to the top rate taxpayers to make room for more tax relief to lower income Americans would prevail in the final tax bill.

During the debate on the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill, I had urged my colleagues that substantial tax relief to middle income Americans should be our top priority. While I regret that my amendment to cut the top rate by one percent to 38.6 percent so millions more middle class Americans would fall into the 15 percent tax bracket failed on a tie vote, Senator GRASSLEY did move in that direction in the Senate bill by insisting that the top rate should be cut to only 36 percent As a result, I reluctantly voted for the bill but pledged to vote against the Conference Report should further reductions in the top tax rate be made at the expense of the majority of Americans who are in much greater need of tax relief.

Unfortunately, the Conference Report did just that by jettisoning the commendable work both Senators GRASSLEY and BAUCUS did in crafting a Senate reconciliation bill that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans. This Conference Report lowers the top rate cut to 35 percent, at the cost of delaying, for several years, much needed tax relief for married couples unfairly penalized by our tax code.

I regret having to vote against this Conference Report. We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. I supported a $1.35 trillion tax cut despite my concern that a tax cut of that size would restrict our ability to fund necessary increases in defense spending. But I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief.
Once more he has been caught in a lie.

Those are not the words of a Conservative who understands the dynamics of a free market, capitalist economy. They are the talking points of the Democrat demagogues in whose party John McCain more naturally fits. One must wonder if a man like Senator John McCain, who has never once held a job in the private economy, who has spent his entire career in the employ of the government can relate to the needs of the small businessman or woman.

From being the son of an admiral, to attending Annapolis, to his service in the Navy, to divorcing his crippled first wife and marrying a wealthy heiress, to serving in Congress first as a Representative and then as a Senator, McCain has lived his entire life outside of the private economy.

McCain's affinity for limiting our Constitutionally protected free speech is evident by his co-authorship of the McCain/Feingold Bill which has turned out to be disastrous on every level, allowing unfettered "independent" advocacy groups to spend unlimited amounts of money attacking any politician with whose agenda they disagree, while limiting the ability of that candidate's campaign to respond. McCain/Feingold was not nor is it now a "Conservative" concept, nor is it in compliance with the Constitution.

On illegal immigration, John McCain's co-authorship of the McCain/Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Package and his continued insistence on allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States sovereign territory indefinitely by means of obtaining a "Z" visa runs contrary to all Conservative values and is in fact the policy goal of our Liberal Democrat Party opponents.

McCain's willingness to distort the record and statements of his opponents and to "embellish" his own pitifully Liberal record are further proof of his dishonesty and lack of character. Once again it appears that the "Straight Talk Express" has taken a very definite Leftward turn.

I have voted in nine Presidential elections and I have always voted for the Republican candidate. I voted that way, not simply because he was the Republican, but primarily because his ideals and policies agreed with my own Conservative beliefs. At the worst, I did so because I believed him to be the lesser of two evils, but at heart I am not so much "a Republican," as I am "a Conservative."

At times I have been more enthusiastic and at times less so, but I never doubted the wisdom of voting "Republican" when faced with the unthinkable Democrat alternative.

That was then and this is now. Now I cannot, nor could I ever in good conscience, support John McCain for the position of President of the United States of America.

Even when faced with the absolute certainty of having a hardcore Marxist/Stalinist opponent in the Democrat Party as both Senator Hillary Rodham, Mrs. William Jefferson, Clinton and Barrack Hussein Obama clearly are, I find that even a Marxist would be preferrable to someone who is certifiably insane.

Following Arizona Senator John McCain's performance, his willingness to persist in telling a bald-faced lie even when directly confronted with proof of his dishonesty, makes it clear that John McCain is the first Republican Presidential candidate to whom I cannot and will not lend my support.

There is no clothespin, no gas-mask sufficiently powerful to bar the insufferable, malodorous emanations of mendacity coming from this miniature martinet that would enable me to vote for him. I would rather watch this nation follow the demonstrably disastrous turn toward socialism that Old Europe has taken, but from which there is always hope of recovery, than put this entire nation and its unimaginable military might into the hands of a man who is undeniably insane.

I fervently hope that Mitt Romney can win the upcoming primaries, or at least enough to prevent McCain from locking up the nomination. If he or even Mike Huckabee proves to be unable to do so, I am faced with the distasteful but inescapable choice of withholding my vote for any candidate for the Presidency.

I will cast my vote in all of the local and state-wide elections, but I will not pull the lever for John McCain. There are many disqualifiers for the Presidency, but, more than any other, it is paramount that any candidate be sane, John McCain is not sane.

May God Help Us All.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Hampshire Primary Results

Posted by Will Malven on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 8:23:07 AM
In the "not what it seems" category, we have the following two stories:
N.Y. Senator Defies Polls, Edges Obama

By Anne E. Kornblut and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 9, 2008; Page A01

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 8 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton narrowly won the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday night, a surprise victory for the onetime front-runner that revived her sagging fortunes and reshaped yet again the fight for the party's nomination.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," Clinton (N.Y.) said at her victory rally, embracing a newly emotional campaign style that appeared to fuel her turnaround here. "Let's give America the kind of comeback New Hampshire has just given me."

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who had anticipated a second consecutive win after his Iowa caucus triumph last Thursday, conceded shortly before 11 p.m. "We always knew our climb would be steep," he told supporters, a day after he had confidently told backers that he was "riding a wave" to a win here. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) placed a distant third, followed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
The results of this were as predictable as the polls proved to be wrong, but were the polls wrong? I have a different take on these two primary results What Happens in New Hampshire, Stays in New Hampshire...Maybe
Clinton and McCain Rebound to Take N.H.
Romney 2nd in GOP Contest; Iowa Winner Huckabee Is 3rd

By Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 9, 2008; Page A01

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 8 -- Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the early Republican front-runner whose campaign imploded last summer, handily won the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, dealing former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney his second loss in the GOP nomination contest.

McCain's victory amounts to a dramatic resurrection for the 71-year-old veteran of presidential politics and further scrambles a Republican race that now moves to Michigan and South Carolina. After New Hampshire, the fight for a new Republican standard-bearer remains a wide-open contest.

"My friends, I'm past the age when I can claim the name 'kid,' no matter what adjective precedes it," McCain told an ecstatic crowd here. "But tonight, we sure showed 'em what a comeback looks like. When the pundits declared us finished, I told 'em, 'I'm going to New Hampshire, where the voters don't let you make their decision for them.' "
We must not forget that the voting rules for New Hampshire are fairly unique. First, you can register to vote in that state one day and vote in the primary the next, second New Hampshire has a very large pool of "undecided" voters who are not required to declare their allegiance and can choose for whom they will vote in the voting booth. Both of these fairly unique factors came into play last night.

Those two factors combined with the inane "sympathy vote" Hillary inevitable gets when she plays the "poor little me, I'm just a woman up against all these mean old men" game.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Happens In New Hampshire Stays in New Hampshire...Maybe

Posted by Will Malven on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 8:20:06 AM
Well first, congratulations to Hillary and McCain for snookering the MSM Pollsters and exceeding expectations in winning the New Hampshire Party Primaries. Looks as though we are in for a real race this year...in both parties.

There are a couple of caveats to be considered here. First, the unique rules under which the New Hampshire Primary system works: You can move to the state one day and vote in the primaries the next. So-called independents don't have to decide to which party they are going to throw their vote until they enter the voting booth.

I believe both of these factors were very influential in what occurred last night. First the cynical aspect. There were various reports of a large influx of out cars with out of state licenses being shuttled in by Hillary Clinton to "work" on her campaign. I believe that there may have been more than a little skullduggery going on...oh, nothing illegal, as I said the rules allow for newcomers to the state to vote in the primaries, so if these "campaign workers" chose to remain and cast their ballots for Hillary, it was completely legal if somewhat questionable morally. Nothing new in ethical flexability when it comes to the Clinton political machine.

Second a more practical and predictable phenomenon...and I saw this danger approaching when the lopsided poll numbers in Obama's favor began to appear two days after the Iowa caucuses concluded...the dangers of overly high expectations for Obama being created by the MSM polling data. It was well known that both Obama and McCain were the favorites of the independant voters. They were very strongly influential in generating the poll numbers for both Barrack Obama and John McCain.

When the independant voters entered the voting booths last night, they were given a choice of voting for Obama as predicted, or for McCain. I believe that many of the independants who would normally have voted for Barrack Hussein Obama in the New Hampshire primaries, decided at the very last second that they would vote for McCain so that he would defeat Mitt Romney because Obama's victory was, in their minds, "a done deal."

In New Hampshire we have witnessed the dangers of generating too high an expectation for victory in your polling data and allowing your ego to embrace those numbers too enthusiastically.

When the results from last night's primary began trending in the direction they did, I knew that both of my scenarios were true. I believe that there was some vote stacking in key precincts by the Hillary campaign, by bringing in a large number of out of state voters to vote for her...again completely legal, if not particularly ethical, and I believe that a great many of those who would have voted for Obama under ordinary circumstances, made a last minute decision to change their vote and pick McCain, who has always had a very strong following in New Hampshire.

Neither of these factors lessens the impact of what occurred last night for both candidates, I merely offer them as an explanation...as I see it.

I would also add that I believe, being the cynic that I am, Hillary's little emotional display Monday and her little contrived, cutsy, "Well I'm hurt by that" reaction in Saturday's Democrat debate when she was told that she was not as attractive a candidate as Barrack Obama; both clear and cynical playings of the feminine card, played an important role in her surprise victory.

Hillary simply pulled another "Lazio" moment and generated a sympathy vote.

Silly me, I was hoping that New Hampshire voters would see through Hillary Clinton's "poor little me" charades, but I guess I overestimated their intelligence. I should have known better, afterall they are "undecideds." How intelligent do you have to be to not be able to see the very clear differences and flaws of each candidate well ahead of casting your vote.

I would call it a "lack of convictions" rather than "undecided" vote. As a result of all of these factors, New Hampshire wound up with an unexpectedly large "independant" vote for McCain and an unexpectedly small "undecided" turnout for Obama.

It's still a race out there folks!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »