Mr T's rants and ravings

Well isn’t that interesting. McCain has picked Sarah Palin as his VP nominee. I heard an NPR reporter say that she didn’t see what Palin brought to the ticket. Say what?

Personally I think she brings a number of things. One is that she should help with some of the Republicans who worry that McCain isn’t far enough to the right. Also she brings a strong and recent record for fighting both corruption and pork barrel spending. And there is also the little fact of being a woman. McCain needs help winning over women and Palin can help there a lot. A lot of those women who are upset about Clinton being “pushed aside” are going to see Palin as a real excuse to vote Republican.

There is some concern in some parts about her stands on energy and I can understand that. But being in Alaska and being a hunter she has to be concerned about the environment so I can see some good potential there as she moves from an Alaska (oil producer) centric role to a national centric role.

All in all I think the campaign just got a whole lot more interesting.

So I have watched some of the Democratic convention tonight. I heard a speech on energy that made a lot of sense though I think it was less than completely honest about McCain’s position. McCain would like to include nuclear power as well as more drilling. It was poorly delivered as well.

I heard some of Biden’s speech as well. The parts I heard were very well done. But I also watched a lot of commentary by Democrats on Twitter. That really ticked me off. Oh not because they loved it all or even because they disagree with me. No what bothers me is these seemingly intelligent people (most are in education) do not appear to have the least understanding of the people who disagree with them. They are too caught up in the emotion of the event to understand any of the politics either. Scary.

Now to be fair a lot of Republicans don’t understand Democrats either. But I expect more from educators. When I hear people say that pro-life people are anti-women I want to scream. That is one of the stupidest things in the world to say. It is a gross admission that one doesn’t even try to understand the objection to abortion. Anyone who says that is either too stupid closed-minded or too dishonest to be elected to public office. Oh it gets me so upset. Pro-choice is pro-women in the same way that pro-slavery is pro-African-American. At least it is to pro-life people. Actually if you look at how abortion is used in China and India you’d have to be blind not to see pro-choice as seriously anti-women. I admit that I do not understand why the Democratic party is not violently pro-life. I mean I understand why some people are pro-choice but if any party on earth should be pro-life it is the Democrats.

But I digress. One person on Twitter didn’t understand why Biden wasn’t hitting on the issue of the Supreme Court in his speech. The obvious answer is because Biden is not a complete idiot. For a lot of people the Supreme Court is a defining issue. It is the main reason I voted in the last two presidential elections and probably the only reason I will vote (if I vote) this time around. During the convention a lot of people who are undecided are listening. Why would Biden use that platform to say “we’ll make sure baby killing stays legal and take away all your guns?” The Supreme Court is an issue to take up with your supporters to get out the vote not a platform to win votes.

A week ago I was pretty sure Obama would win. Now I’m not so sure. I think Biden was really a bad choice. If people were starting to believe that Obama wasn’t too far to the left the choice of Biden will likely convince them otherwise. You have to run to the middle to win. Of course McCain could similarly blow his choice of a running mate so it is still too early by far to place bets. This one is going to the wire I think.

Well the Supreme Court released the Heller Decision today. The short version is that the Second Amendment is about an individual right to keep and carry weapons that is not tied to the militia. Use for self-defense as well as hunting are permitted and expected uses. The DC Gun law has been struck down.

Now I could ask for a little more (striking down the machine gun restrictions) but none of that was part of this case. I don’t think that anyone who believes in reasonable gun laws will be upset either. People who believe in unreasonable restrictions will of course be disappointed. 🙂 There are a lot of loose ends though. What is reasonable in licencing? What are reasonable places and circumstances to not permit guns? Oh yeah the courts are going to be busy with this one for a while. If one wants to go into the woods to camp or even for a photo shoot they can maybe buy ar-15’s from Palmetto State Armory for safety purposes.

The interesting thing is that if someone does decide to overturn some gun restrictions, like the one on machine guns, they will use the dissenting argument more than the majority one. That will be fun to watch.

Last week Obama said "And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." He got in some hot water for that. Some are saying that is proof that he doesn’t understand rural voters. He replies that he just explained the truth poorly. Personally I think he is largely right.

I think he does understand rural voters at least as well as Clinton does. The big problem, and it is a problem for both of them, is that they are on the wrong side of issues that are important to rural voters.

Clinton said "Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a constitutional right" and I have no doubt that Obama understands that as well. But the fact is that both candidates want to seriously abridge that right in ways that go against rural values. Clinton is just less honest about it.

Religion is another area where both candidates are weak. Personally I think Obama is more credible as a Christian (as one who really believes what they say about what they believe) to me but Clinton is the better politician about it. Her show is better. Obama gets hurt because people, especially in rural areas, are being fed a lot of misinformation on one hand and on the other hand there is his whole wrong stand on abortion. It’s hard for people to understand a religious person standing for abortion when their own religion sees it as so abhorrent.

And immigration is just such a mess I’m not sure there is a right side to be on. Trade is an area that hits rural areas differently than urban ones. Its complex to solve but easy to pick a simplified side.

It’s a mess. I understand what the man was trying to say. I think he is largely right. Economics are not deep ingrained "values" though it is a huge concern. Plus it is a complex concern with complex "fixes." Religion, guns and even immigration are issues that are more easily simplified as reasons to vote. Right or wrong it is easier to say "she’s different" or "his stand on guns is wrong" or "they’re more interested in immigration as a way to get the ethnic vote" then to really take a look at the greater economic issues and suggested solutions.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama loses some votes in rural areas because of his skin color. No doubt at all. It may not be so much that he is black as it is that he looks different. I suspect that a white candidate who looked too upper class or too different in some other way would lose some votes for that. As much as Obama loses for being black? In some areas yes and in other areas no. Racism is still stronger in rural areas than in urban ones. Denying it may win some votes but that doesn’t make it right.

I don’t think this makes Obama less electable than Clinton though. When push comes to shove and voters have a choice between a woman and a man as many people are going to vote for the man as would vote for the white in a white versos black election. Not the same people but about the same numbers. Sexism still exists to! But in both cases I think that the issues will be the deciding factor more than the "they look different" factor. None of the sexism and racism is near as bad as it once was.

In my own case, between Clinton and Obama I see little differences in issues. But Clinton is not a nice person (in my perception) and Obama is. Obama seems sincere in his Christianity and Clinton does not. Sincerity is more important than the specific religion BTW. At least in a political candidate I am evaluating. I feel better after listening to Obama and somewhat slimy after listening to Clinton. So I’d vote for Obama over Clinton without a second thought.

McCain over Clinton without a second thought. McCain against Obama? That requires some thought.

So I found this interesting.

Campaigning in Indianapolis for her mother, Chelsea Clinton had a quick retort when asked a question she had never had before. When a male student asked her if her mother’s credibility had been hurt during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton quickly responded.
"Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question, in the, maybe 70 college campuses that I’ve been to," Clinton bitterly said at Butler University.  "And I don’t think that’s any of your business."

The comments at the MSDN article range from anger at the student who asked the question to "what’s wrong with the question?" from others.

Now to be honest I think this was a fair question. A little rough; a little unkind; a little difficult to answer but in the end isn’t the credibility of a person something to take into account when electing a president. I can think of a lot better ways she could have answered that. For example "that was a very difficult time in my life and the life of my family and I’d really rather not talk about it." Now that I could have lived with.

Credibility is more and more an issue for Clinton. So soon after the exaggerated version of her Africa trip you’d think her whole team would be more sensitive about that sort of question. More and more I have to wonder why anyone supports Clinton for president.

Now to be honest I never liked Hilary Clinton so I am predisposed to disagree with her on a lot of things that she does and says. So this flap she is trying to start about Obama "plagiarizing" from Gov. Patrick is something I was skeptical of from the start. After watching a clip of this issue being brought up on the Texas debate I’ve concluded she was way out of line.

Patrick is an Obama advisor and someone who apparently frequently makes suggestions about what Obama should say in speeches. In this case that Clinton is trying to make a big deal of she is more or less accusing Obama of having a speech writer. And if you look at it that way its pretty silly to bring it up at all.

Can Clinton win on substance? Bringing this silly item up makes me wonder if she and her team are afraid that substance is not enough. Interesting.

More and more I hear from people promoting Obama that he inspires them. That is why they support him – they are inspired. Honestly I would like to be inspired. I would actually like to like Obama. He is a powerful speaker. But I want to be inspired to do good things. And there are things in Obama’s record that worry me.

I think we tend to think of inspiring people as forces for good. That is what we want to believe. If a person moves us to action we want to believe that we are as moved by their ideals as by their words. We hear a speech like Dr King’s "I have a dream" speech and it moves us in a positive way. And yet words can inspire in ways that are anything but good. Hitler was inspiring. Mao was inspiring. Castro is still inspiring. Would we elect any of them president? I sure hope not.

Now I am not saying that Obama is evil and I certainly would not compare him to Hitler or Mao or Castro. But there is the matter of his support for legal abortion. And his strong opposition to the Second Amendment as I understand its meaning. Here is a man who quite clearly wants to protect the guilty and punish the innocent.

Abortion is simple a matter of defining certain inconvenient people as "not human" and killing them. Is that any different from the lynching of black men in the days of Jim Crow or the murder of Jews in Germany? If a man can define one group of people as not human why not another? Would you vote for a person who said "well I don’t believe that gassing Jews is right but I think we should leave that decision up to each individual?" I hope not. But you’d vote for someone who said the same thing replacing "gassing Jews" with "having an abortion?" And sleep at night knowing they were going to control atom weapons?

The right to bare arms is much about the right of good and innocent people to protect themselves from evil people who would do them harm. How can someone say they care about the weak and defenseless while working tirelessly to keep them weak and defenseless? The Supreme Court is going to decide if the gun laws in Washington DC are Constitutional or not. I believe both of the main Democratic candidates have said that the Supreme Court should let those laws stand. Now perhaps they believe those laws are good for people. If so they are far too stupid to be president. I’m not sure they are that dumb. And if they are not why would they support those laws? It makes you wonder.

Can I trust someone who supports people who would kill the innocent and disarm people who would protect the innocent? Can I really? I don’t think so no matter how inspired a speaker they are.