Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on October 4, 2008 By Draginol In Politics

I've said before that there's no circumstance I would vote for McCain. But watching how he has dealt with this financial crisis reminds me why I would never support him. He's no maverick. There's no straight talk. He's just a politician with a marketing slogan who doesn't really know why he wants to be President.  He's Bob Dole II and he's going to lose like him.

Obama, by contrast, deserves to win.  I don't agree with Obama on any major issues. But he knows why he wants to be President.  Obama thinks the country, as it is today, is fundamentally flawed and that him and his Democratic congress will start to address those flaws.

I think Obama is naive and foolish but I have to give credit to someone who truly believes in his cause.

McCain, on the other hand, has no cause other than to be President.

Let me give you a few examples:

#1 The credit crisis

McCain takes the same view as Obama. Greedy wallstreet types. Bullshit.  The vast majority of Americans are culpable here.  If McCain were the straight talker he says he is, he would say into the camera that he has met the enemy and the enemy is us.  How many people do you personally know that have significant credit card debt? How many people do you know have refinanced their homes in the last few years and now owe more on their homes than their homes are worth? I bet the answer is: LOTS.

It's easy to blame bankers or wallstreet types for this crisis.  But they're less culpable than the American people are.  Real leadership would be to go up and say something like "We caused this together and if we want to solve it in the long term we need to quit blaming others and start living within our means."

I support the bail out. A lot of conservatives don't but I disagree with me.  A lot of conservatives don't necessarily realize that most of that bad paper ultimately leads to some individual's abandoned asset be it a house, a car, or some other big ticket item.  I recently bought 10 acres of choice property at half the price it went for 5 years ago.  Lots of banks are holding the bag on potentially trillions of dollars in fixed assets if individual Americans default on their loans. 

But sure, let's blame the banks and the financial institutions. It's a lot easier to blame them than the dead beat cousin or uncle we know who bought a $200k house with zero down, interest only ARM even though he gets fired from jobs every few months because "his boss was an asshole".

But let's be real, individual Americans caused this crisis. I'm more than happy to blame the Democrats who put pressure on financial institutions to get the poor into homes. But at the end of the day, it's we, the people who brought this on ourselves.

It's not greed and corruption on wallstreet that caused this mess. It's greed and corruption of millions of Americans who decided they wanted "stuff" they knew, deep down, they couldn't afford and then blame the banks and financial institutions for not being able to figure out the actual value of these assets now.

Where's McCain's straight talk?

#2 Valuing being buddies with his Senate colleagues more than serving the American people

McCain values experience over ideas. If one of his senate colleagues disagrees with him, he'll chalk it up to a "difference of opinion". Only on foreign policy is McCain willing to talk about what's dangerous.

You know what was really dangerous, McCain? Shoving a naive "campaign finance law" down our throats that restricts the ability of Americans to voice their opinions during an election. 

When it comes to affecting our freedoms, in a real world, practical, every day sense, domestic policy is more important than foreign policy and McCain has no real understanding or passion for it.

Obama has a passion for domestic policy. He believes in equality of results. He sees the gap between rich and poor and thinks the government should do something about it.  I think he's disastrously wrong but McCain will do little other than have a polite disagreement with Obama and Biden over basic issues that affect our basic freedoms.

McCain has plenty of passion about Obama talking about Pakistan but very little when it comes to Obama's vision of having the government take over our health care needs or Obama deciding how much people "deserve" to make or Obama's beliefs on how we should live, what languages we speak, and what cars we should drive.

If McCain deserved to win, he would be passionately defending the American people against what Obama really is.  There are millions of Americans who share Obama's vision for America and Obama is a fantastic advocate for them.  McCain is a terrible advocate for the millions of Americans who disagree with Obama's vision and deep down, we're not even sure if McCain even has a vision of what the American ideal is.

Obama would rather Americans have a poorer standard of living overall than to have such a gulf between the rich, the middle class, and the poor.  And there are lots of people who agree with him. But there are millions of undecided voters who don't realize what path Obama would take us towards.

A simple, passionate speech entitled "The government is not your baby daddy" by McCain could go a long way.  But no straight talk from McCain.

No, McCain will fixate on some comment Obama made about Pakistan rather than the substantial policy issues that Obama favors that would be ruinous to the American spirit.

#3 Nitpicking attack ads instead of substance

McCain's ads are almost all negative. I don't have a problem with that in principle but they're almost all petty and nitpicky.  If his ads were explaining the consequences of an Obama presidency that would be one thing.

McCain's ads should focus on a couple of topics and pound on them:

#1 LOWER THE DEBT. Explain how our borrowing is undermining our way of life and sapping our strength. Explain that yes, it's going to require freezing spending but as Americans, we can do it.

#2 ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Explain how we're funding our adversaries around the world with our addiction to oil. Explain the plan to drill for more oil domestically, build nuclear plants and push for more clean coal tech while at the same time pushing hard for plug-in Hybrids and other types of vehicles that use energy that is cleaner and home produced.

#3 WRAP UP THINGS IN IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN. Explain how we are going to being drawing down troops in Iraq now that the situation is stabilizing and how we're going to continue to disrupt Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

That's it.  He's talked about these things a little bit but these are the 3 things he should just beat home over and over. They're all winning strategies and if he just pounded on those 3 things. 

Ads about "cleaning up Washington" are stupid and cliche.  We've heard these vague promises before.  Be specific.

Of course, McCain won't and that's why he deserves to lose.


Comments (Page 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Oct 06, 2008

I think Obama is naive and foolish but I have to give credit to someone who truly believes in his cause.

That pretty much summed up what I just stated on another thread.

My only difference is that there is a slight (about 10%) possibility I will vote for McCain.  Not that I think he is any good, but I have to look at Barr closer, but right now, that is who I am leaning towards.

on Oct 06, 2008

He's just a politician with a marketing slogan who doesn't really know why he wants to be President.

I think Obama is more than naive and foolish, he is downright dangerous.  If anybody is running a marketing campaign it's Obama....change change change.  Even his own supporters can't list his accomplishments, they just run around chanting "change" without any substance or definition.

 

 

on Oct 06, 2008

McCain is borderline Democrat, and Obama is a Socialist. Neither of them fit what I want as a President.

They are both clueless. But I'll stick with Michael Bloomberg's rather comical assessment.

Half of the republicans would vote for Leon Trotsky if he was on the GOP side of the ballot and half of the Democrats would vote for Ayn Rand if she was on the Democratic side.

on Oct 06, 2008

I agree with the woman!

So do I.

 

on Oct 06, 2008

Again, I never said I want a politician that can be my buddy or that they act like a 'regular joe / jane.' Why do you keep saying that?

Hmmm, I don't see where I said "that" in the quote you posted.

Maybe you mean 'you people' as in people you talk to daily? I have no clue.

You mean you don't want to understand. Come on people, I'm not talking a different language here. This is typical "I don't understand you" replies used as excuses to avoid arguments.

We'll just have to disagree here then. I don't see how it shows she's 'talking to us'. It just seems to me that she's trying too hard to 'relate'. Just use normal terms and I'll decide for myself if your points on issues are agreeable with me.

Trying too hard? Isn't that what politicians are suppose to do? I mean if trying hard is the wrong way to get us to vote for them why do politicians spend so much money on ads, websites, posters, banners, etc?

on Oct 06, 2008

CharlesCS


Hmmm, I don't see where I said "that" in the quote you posted.

 

I got that from the whole you complain ketchup analogy.  Maybe you were using you in common vernacular instead and didn't mean me specifically because that would be an invalid point.

 

CharlesCS

Maybe you mean 'you people' as in people you talk to daily? I have no clue.
You mean you don't want to understand. Come on people, I'm not talking a different language here. This is typical "I don't understand you" replies used as excuses to avoid arguments.
We'll just have to disagree here then. I don't see how it shows she's 'talking to us'. It just seems to me that she's trying too hard to 'relate'. Just use normal terms and I'll decide for myself if your points on issues are agreeable with me.
Trying too hard? Isn't that what politicians are suppose to do? I mean if trying hard is the wrong way to get us to vote for them why do politicians spend so much money on ads, websites, posters, banners, etc?

 

I'm going to assume you are misunderstanding me genuinely and not misrepresenting me to make whatever point it is you are trying to make.  I have some doubts though.  You quote my whole last paragraph and center the issue on trying too hard when the point of that paragraph was summed up in the last sentence.  I prefer politicians use normal terms and not 'affectionate' nicknames and I'll decide if I agree with them.  It's an unnecessary, superficial addition to me.  I go straight to candidates' agendas.  Though I may be in the minority since it does seem to work.  I never believed that was the case before though.

I'm assuming you take issue with what I said first in this thread since you quoted me on it.  Your whole argument with my point is "we don't normally see politicians as average joes like us and we always complain about it, now that she is somewhat one of us and wants to show it, people complain".

 

I see you used we instead of 'you people' that I wrote.  There's really no argument to avoid.  I'm not in that 'we' category because I never complained about that being something lacking with politicians in the first place. 

 

My whole choice of picking who I vote for is looking through their facade / smoke-screen as best I can (just like most other people I would assume) and picking the candidate that most fits my beliefs. And yes I assume all candidates though smudge their stances a little during election time because it is a numbers game.  And they are in it to win.

 

If that's how you happen to do it too, great.   If not, that's fine too.  That's why you get your own vote.

on Oct 06, 2008

#1 The credit crisis

McCain takes the same view as Obama. Greedy wallstreet types. Bullshit.  The vast majority of Americans are culpable here.  If McCain were the straight talker he says he is, he would say into the camera that he has met the enemy and the enemy is us.  How many people do you personally know that have significant credit card debt? How many people do you know have refinanced their homes in the last few years and now owe more on their homes than their homes are worth? I bet the answer is: LOTS.

It's easy to blame bankers or wallstreet types for this crisis.  But they're less culpable than the American people are.  Real leadership would be to go up and say something like "We caused this together and if we want to solve it in the long term we need to quit blaming others and start living within our means."

I support the bail out. A lot of conservatives don't but I disagree with me.  A lot of conservatives don't necessarily realize that most of that bad paper ultimately leads to some individual's abandoned asset be it a house, a car, or some other big ticket item.  I recently bought 10 acres of choice property at half the price it went for 5 years ago.  Lots of banks are holding the bag on potentially trillions of dollars in fixed assets if individual Americans default on their loans. 

But sure, let's blame the banks and the financial institutions. It's a lot easier to blame them than the dead beat cousin or uncle we know who bought a $200k house with zero down, interest only ARM even though he gets fired from jobs every few months because "his boss was an asshole".

But let's be real, individual Americans caused this crisis. I'm more than happy to blame the Democrats who put pressure on financial institutions to get the poor into homes. But at the end of the day, it's we, the people who brought this on ourselves.

It's not greed and corruption on wallstreet that caused this mess. It's greed and corruption of millions of Americans who decided they wanted "stuff" they knew, deep down, they couldn't afford and then blame the banks and financial institutions for not being able to figure out the actual value of these assets now.

Where's McCain's straight talk?

In my opinion, the blame is 50/50, these companies really should have thought about things before they gave some of the people the loans, credit, etc... It was irresponsible of them have a business transaction with those who wouldn't be able to keep up with payments and so on. The people on the other hand really need to think before they act (same can be said for the companies). Common sense, you don't borrow money when you can't afford it; likewise, you don't credit or lend someone money when you know damn well that they won't be able to pay it back, or will struggle and possibly default on it.

on Oct 06, 2008

OK, I think you are being a tab bit too picky here. If you don't consider yourself part of the we or them or us crowd then you needed not to take the comments towards you. But I do question that you never considered a politician to be out of touch with us regular people because they can't relate to us. In the end a politician is like a lawyer, they are not seen as people either. A politician is suppose to be for the people and should understand us if they wanna claim to represent us. To believe a politician can represent us without being able to relate to us is a weird way of looking at things.

on Oct 06, 2008

t was irresponsible of them [to] have a business transaction with those who wouldn't be able to keep up with payments, default, and so on. The people [asking for it] on the other hand really need to think before they act (same can be said for the companies). Common sense, you don't borrow money when you can't afford it; likewise, you don't credit or lend someone money when you know damn well that they won't be able to pay it back, or will struggle and possibly default on it.

To go further on this; If I'm going to get a mortgage, or loan - I'm going to make sure I can afford it, otherwise I risk ruining what I have, and possibly losing it all. It's smart budgeting and fiscal planning really.

I was readnig something the other day of a suggestion to tentatively fix the rate on mortgages at nothing higher than ~6% or so (taking into account all the factors); the reasoning was that it was manageable for the seekers, and if done right, profitable for the companies. It sounds like an idea, certainly better than the buyout fiasco. What do you think Brad?

Anyways, we'll see how things go.

on Oct 06, 2008

In my opinion, the blame is 50/50, these companies really should have thought about things before they gave some of the people the loans, credit, etc... It was irresponsible of them have a business transaction with those who wouldn't be able to keep up with payments and so on. The people on the other hand really need to think before they act (same can be said for the companies). Common sense, you don't borrow money when you can't afford it; likewise, you don't credit or lend someone money when you know damn well that they won't be able to pay it back, or will struggle and possibly default on it.

Here's one thing I don't understand. Why do some believe that instituations like banks were somehow dumb enough to do this on their own knowing the consequences? Why would they purposely screw with their own business? That just doesn't make sense to me and it's obviously bad business practice. But then many keep ignoring what the Gov't did to make it easier to do this (thanks to the Democrats and their "we gotta help the little guy" mentality and ACORN for their very interesting ways to persuade banks to make these stupid loans.

on Oct 06, 2008

Here's one thing I don't understand. Why do some believe that instituations like banks were somehow dumb enough to do this on their own knowing the consequences? Why would they purposely screw with their own business? That just doesn't make sense to me and it's obviously bad business practice. But then many keep ignoring what the Gov't did to make it easier to do this (thanks to the Democrats and their "we gotta help the little guy" mentality and ACORN for their very interesting ways to persuade banks to make these stupid loans.

Well apparently they weren't very bright in giving the loans. It doesn't take Einstein to realize that as a bank, you just cannot give out some loans to some people. It's bad business. I'm not saying they're inept, they just made bad business decisions.

The Gov't just put out the fire, but did nothing to solve the long term problem. So far as I've read.

 

on Oct 06, 2008

Well apparently they weren't very bright in giving the loans. It doesn't take Einstein to realize that as a bank, you just cannot give out some loans to some people. It's bad business. I'm not saying they're inept, they just made bad business decisions.

You didn't address the ACORN issue. This has been spoken about before. What is your take on them "forcing"banks to make these loans by using "scare tactics"?

on Oct 06, 2008

I find it hard to believe that not 1 but multiple banks were this stupid to have done such a bad business decisions all at the same time. 

on Oct 06, 2008

SilentPoet
To go further on this; If I'm going to get a mortgage, or loan - I'm going to make sure I can afford it, otherwise I risk ruining what I have, and possibly losing it all. It's smart budgeting and fiscal planning really.

Welcome to the entitlement mentality.  People aren't that responsible, especially poor people.

 

Well apparently they weren't very bright in giving the loans. It doesn't take Einstein to realize that as a bank, you just cannot give out some loans to some people.

I would suggest you read more about ACORN, Obama, Barney Frank, and their actions towards companies.

 

on Oct 06, 2008

You didn't address the ACORN issue. This has been spoken about before. What is your take on them "forcing"banks to make these loans by using "scare tactics"?

It doesn't necessarily force them, so much as it pressures them. However, in the end the banks do not have to do it. Granted, it's pushy and does put them in a bind. However...they can still cut back on the number of loans.

 

I find it hard to believe that not 1 but multiple banks were this stupid to have done such a bad business decisions all at the same time. 

 

Well, no matter what, they were stupid in letting the goverment force them to do so many bad loans. They could have easily said, "Hey listen, we're up to our neck here, and we're concerned about our stability. Sorry, but lets have them go elsewhere, lets work something out." It could have been done. Besides, if you look at the actual text of the law, it says:

regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;

(3)  regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.

(  It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are charteredconsistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

 

So, while I agree, it is quite...(for lack of a better term coming to mind) shitty, there's still the room available to cut back on how many loans (or bad loans) the bank does.

 

[quote]I would suggest you read more about ACORN, Obama, Barney Frank, and their actions towards companies.[/quote[


Ah, you mean for light reading? Lol Any suggested starting points, I've already done some reading on them.

 

Welcome to the entitlement mentality.  People aren't that responsible, especially poor people.

*Bristles* You know, I understand that you likely didn't mean ALL poor people, but you know it really does piss me off when I see people with that mentality. It's as if being poor is some sort of disease, or mentality. I've worked my ass of the last 3 years whiule going to school, and I'm still technically "poor," the same thing with my mother and sister. None of us believe we're entitled to anything other than a helping hand (to help ourselves, not to pamper or welfare state us) when we need it. We really need to revise the concept of poor; it leads to stereotypes.

 

 

 

5 Pages1 2 3 4 5