The entrenched Republican establishment has done real damage to America's self-confidence, economic well-being and its once unrestrained optimism.
After eight years in charge of the White House, GOP leaders had little reason to expect they could escape accountability in the fall.
So the party seized on its only hope, employing the one character witness with the integrity and courage to successfully plead for leniency.
That character witness is John McCain.
The Arizona senator has long been a statesmanlike voice of conscience and prudence within the party, even as he fended off stinging attacks from members threatened by his crusades against corruption and ignorance. Americans still inherently trust that man to make difficult decisions about their lives and their nation. They still revere McCain's heroism and bravery.
But in his quest for the presidency, McCain has methodically abandoned his signature positions in order to curry favor with his former adversaries in the most right-wing factions of the GOP.
In his acceptance speech Thursday evening, a restrained McCain attempted to recapture the maverick mantle that had made him so popular with crossover voters in both parties.
What the speech did was highlight how far he has traveled in just a few short months.
"We believe" in tax cuts for corporations, for wealthy investors and on millionaire estates, he told conventioneers, and in vaguely defined spending cuts.
"We believe" in school vouchers and wedge social issues.
"We believe" oil-drilling is essential to solving the energy crisis.
This was the same John McCain who once believed that those tax policies were irresponsible because they would expand the national deficit. He once believed Washington should focus on good-government reform, not culture wars. He believed in renewable energy investments and the need to address global warming.
The references to policy in his speech were bland and predictable, and they created a stark disconnect with his promise to "shake up Washington." He never answered how his administration would transform Washington while accepting a status quo that has given America a 6.1 percent unemployment rate, pushed the economy to the brink of recession and mired the military in an open-ended war that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
One of the primary goals of the week in St. Paul was to assimilate McCain into a party establishment that has viewed him with suspicion. He was successful, but that focus postponed his day of reckoning with the independents and moderate Republicans and Democrats he will need to win in November.
The GOP utterly failed to engage those important voters this week, instead putting on a tired show of anti-media anger, economic entitlement and us-versus-them retrenchment. Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin stood at the ramparts, sniping sarcastically at her opponents.
Tellingly, the best moment in McCain's speech Thursday evening - and perhaps of the entire convention - was an unscripted one. As angry crowds shouted down a protester, the candidate calmed them with a gentle reminder.
"Americans want us to stop yelling at each other," he said.
McCain is absolutely right, which makes the days of rancor preceding his speech so baffling. He gamely attempted to end the gathering gracefully, saying he was not running as a Republican, but that assurance misses the point.
Americans don't expect McCain to disavow his party - they don't want him to - but they do worry that he has disavowed his principles. Voters want him to be the maverick they have long known and admired, not the leader of the party that has squandered eight years in Washington.
Americans know McCain is capable of being the kind of president who can renew and restore faith in necessary institutions, but after this week's angry convention, and after the selection of Palin as a running mate, and even after Thursday's speech, they still wonder:
Will he?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
I coulda sworn it was
the democratic controlled legislative branch that past the resolution allowing the federal government the right to take control of private industries whose downfall would definitely cause a major disruption in the WORLD economy. I coulda sworn it was those same people that fell for the line about having a bazooka could do enough to sway the enemy, that just cuz you have one doesn't mean you have to use it. AND, while your at it, look at what just the announcement of the government takeover did to real interest rate for mortgages, not the bank trading and loan interest rates, but the real ones that the real home buying public sees. Yes the Fanny and Freddy takeover is a bad situation, but it is a necessary evil that democrats were duped into and that appears to actually be working...for now. Auto industry, no, I think those are being allowed to slowly fail while the foreign and better carmakers take over. Toyota makes several major parts here in the US now after all.
Rancor
I have read the previous posts. I believe that most of the discussion centers on personal (i.e., Ad Homenen, sp?) attacks. I do not personally know either candidate. Therefore I cannot vouch for either of them.
My concern is for the welfare of our country. Remember, we have three branches of government. Legislative (i.e., purse strings), Executive (i.e., everyfday administration), and Judicial (i.e., courts). I believe that we were truely blessed by having a group of individuals (i.e., founding fathers) that forsaw these types of conflict within our union. I also believe that no matter who wins this race, our country will prvail.
I would like to think that it does not matter what race, religion or gender a candidate may posses, but what the cadidates vision for our country is. I also realize that I maybe a bit premature in my vision. I hope everyone votes, and that they vote for the benefit of our great country and not their personal benefit.
Say's it all
"Obama has modified some opinions, after research into the matter."
He has changed ALL of his opinions after collecting information. Nor does he have a dependable record to follow. We have nothing to judge this man by except his words. Talk is cheap.
With that being said my dear two miler...what would my bias be?
Impressions, viewers & listeners have
of the candidates are influenced by their own inner biases. McCain, to any impartial person, is not the maverick of old but a sell-out to the far right so-called christian base of his party. Obama has modified some opinions, after research into the matter. So has McCain, on occasion. That's reasonable. Just look at what 'W''s inflexibility has caused. By the way, 1 reason the unemployment rate is only 6.1%, is the Bush admin. doesn't count people unemployed over a yr., the underemployed or part-time students looking for work.
Looking for answers on Barack Obama
The man promises all kinds of 'feelgood' items but never addresses how they will be paid for. The logical mind can figure out that it means more taxes to placate the masses with entitlement programs.
Mr. Obama is a SOCIALIST, he will tax us more to try and make us dependant on the government to the point that we will do anything to keep that Gov'ment Check coming. Including giving up free will and the 'liberty' you Dems talk about all the time. How is this a good thing?
How's that Gertz? I addressed the Principle issue about Mr. Obama. And the only name I called him was 'Socialist'. But that's hardly derogatory in your world is it?
Not childish at all unless you can't stand factual arguements.
If someone....
If someone is referring to the name "NObama" as republican name calling, I suggest that person take a hard look at the continuous barrage of liberals that do much much worse. NObama is a statement, not name calling. Get over it and chastise your fellow liberals for their incessant childishness extreme leftist slogans. They used to make laugh, are really getting boring at this point and don't really portray rationality.
and the name calling continues
Most Republicans can't make a comment without doing the name calling thing. It really gets childish.
NICE REBUTTAL C.B......
My question to you: Is the 2008 John McCain (not the 2000 JM, mind you) running for President? Because listening to his 40 year old diatribes and epistles, it seems he's really running for POW of the United States.
Is that ALL he has to run on? Well?
Nice laugh but...
The chris33 link was rather funny. I wonder when the same people will put together a video of NObama with a turbin, changing his mind everytime he turns around. Just today, he now doesn't favor taxing the "rich" until the economy turns around. Go figure Mr Can't Make Up Your Mind. So far every argument that McCain has put forth, NObama ends up supporting in the long run. Is NObama in training or is he running for President?
Great Link chris33
I needed that laugh! :)
The Real John McCain Is Now History
McCain didn't get his chance in 2000. So we spent four days of 2008, a very different time, listening to what Philadelphia would have looked like in late July and early August 2000.
There were accolades about a man who fought in Vietnam, was a POW, and a maverick. That was THE John McCain of 2000. But that man doesn't exist in 2008. McCain of 2000 would not have flip-flopped on numerous elements of his own stands. The McCain of 2000 would have never selected Sarah Palin as a running mate.
So they honored a man who is gone. The McCain that was showered with praise in St. Paul isn't on the ballot this year. But in politics, you can't go back. You can only go forward. Barack Obama wants to go forward. John McCain wishes it was 2000, but no matter how many times he clicks his heels, he isn't going home.
Liberal?
I can't believe that the Pilot is consistantly pillored with the label "Liberal". It seems every few days, they carry at least a third of a page column of one of the most anti-Obama people in the U.S., Washington Post writer Charles Krauthammer. His hatred for Obama is felt, time and again, in his writings. Liberal? Give me a break.
As to "if you believe in redistribution of wealth, social engineering programs and reliance on the government to do everything for you, vote Obama. It's that simple!" No, it's NOT that simple. President Bush and his buddies are falling head over heels in the mad stampede to bail out Freddie and Fannie, Wall Street, their banking buddies, and soon....the Auto Industry. There is no fundamental difference between the major parties...they're both controlled by lobbyists and other special interests. How is universal health care socialistic, and the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie democratic? Because Bush says it's so?
How about this
Let's just elect John McCain as POW of the United States, since it appears that 40 year message is all he can run on.
There, that should settle all this diatribe.
Op Eds are supposed to be biased
Just a little news flash for those of crying foul. You're off-base. This is an "opinion of the editor." Oh, and newspapers have endorsed and attacked candidates since their where newspapers.
Biased report
Often the ediors posts in the paper are nonsensical. However in this case I invite critique of ALL of the candidates. I hope the paper is gracious enough to give the same space to the outstanding comments about Obama next Sunday. Perhaps when issues are raised and not questions we can all be better informed voters which I see as a basic duty of a news source: to provide factual information.
Of Course McSame Has Sold His Soul!
He has had to pander to the far right and the evangelicals (picking Palin) just to get their selfish and hateful agendas into this election cycle. McSame is following the same Karl Rove script that the current Bush followed. To use the immortal words of George W. Bush, "Fool me once (long pause)... we don't get fooled again." You can check that out on "Bushisms" on You Tube. I would also strongly recommend for everyone (unless they have had the McKool Aid) to see "McCain Vs. McCain" on You Tube. It shows first hand what this article is talking about.
Don't like your own dog food?
As I remember it was the radical right and the corporate controlled media (that's essentially all of what is ignorantly called the liberal media) that coined the term "flip-flopper" to deride John Kerry during one of those extended episodes of Bush hagiography that pass for election cycles lately. As I further remember, Kerry answered the flip-flopping claim by saying something reasonable like "The situation has changed so strategy must change" but that was derided as an excuse. Personally, I think many peoples attention spans were too short and they decided to ignore that in favor of Bush's cowboy impressions.
I think the whole concept of flip flopper as an insult is generally applied to any enemy who changes their mind ever. I find the weak and dull. Only an idiot never changes their mind based on new information Only an idiot could fail to see the wisdom of adapting strategies to meet a desired end. The question is what is that end and will the strategy fit it? The other question is why is the radical right whining about Obama's popularity? Don't they remember the huge We Love Bush parties the so called liberal media had during the passed two election cycles? embarassed
Truth or Lie?
McCain said; "Sold that jet on Ebay." Lie... EBay says it was listed but never sold.
McCain said, "Sold at a Profit" Lie... Alaske reports it was sold at a $600,000 lose.
McCain is playing fast and loose with the facts means he can't be trusted. Haven't we had enough lies in the past eight years?
Vote Barack Obama in 2008.
what is the standard?
If changing your positions for political expediency is the standard to earn the Pilot's enmity, then what do you say about a politician that says he will accept public financing, then decides not to? Or commits to end the embargo against Cuba, until he speaks to a Cuban American group, and thinks it is "an important inducement for change." Or vehemently opposes the Patriot Act and legal immunity for phone companies, until he gets the nomination, then votes for renewal? Or, when running for the senate says “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage," then changes his tune once he runs for president. Or tells Illinois college students he supports legalization for marijuana. Once he runs for president, not so fast.
The stench that pervades this editorial is fear -- a real fear their desired outcome is slipping from their grasp. I know what that smell is like, and this reeks of it.
Unemployment
A 5% rate of unemployment is considered full employment, therefore making a 6.1% rate rather miniscule. But of course in their Obamamania the VP is not going to mention that little factoid, nor will it mention the fact that there have been large downsizings in the past months at many major news outlets, primarily print media. Those downsizings -- IOW layoffs --- are due to decreased reader/viewership which means decreased advertising which means less MONEY.
Why the downsizing of the media outlets? Editorials such as this to begin with.