Sunday, August 24, 2008

John McCain is Not Too Rich to be President

It's fun to make fun of John McCain right now.

He doesn't know how many houses he owns.

He spends more than a quarter million a year on servants.

He thinks you have to earn $5 million to be rich.

He wears $500 loafers.


But, I ask my fellow Democrats - are those reasons to vote against him? Do those facts make Obama the superior candidate?

John F. Kennedy had some serious coin. John Kerry and John Edwards don't worry about the price of milk.

When we indulge in our childish mocking, we buy into the same silly non-issues that typify our discourse. We take our eyes off the reasons that John McCain is the wrong choice (Iraq, Iran, Supreme Court, Tax Breaks for the Wealthy, Environmental Degradation, Spying on Americans, Pro-Torture, etc.). At the same time, we legitimize the attention which will come to whatever non-issue the Right Wing Noise Machine generates about Obama. I don't want this election to turn on what brand of sunglasses Obama prefers, or the fabric of his socks.

On the other hand, this sort of nonsense sways votes. As has been demonstrated in past elections (in a spirit of bipartisanship, I won't name which), a significant portion of voters cast their ballots on "feelings" or factors other than a rigorous analysis of which candidate holds positions they share. If the Democrats limit their debate to the high ground of policy discussion, the Republicans will run the table with all their friends in low places.

It's a sad fact of democracy that elections don't always get decided on the issues I would choose. So, I regretfully acknowledge the importance of non-issues, and hope that those who focus on them for the Democrats sway at least as many foolish people as those who focus on them for the Republicans.

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous dianne said...

Facts...just one of those silly little things..

McCain SPONSORED the amendment that banned torture and fought hard for it.

Maybe you forgot McCain had a little experience in that area.

8/24/2008 5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps John McCain would get a pass if he hadn't spent the last month producing race baiting, gutter treading, sorry-ass ads designed to contest this election on the lowest level possible. Add to that the fact that he has been trying to make Barack the 'elitist' in this race, and his inability to remember how many houses he has is certainly fair game.

Dan, you need to stop thinking about high minded ideals on democracy and start thinking about the path to 270 electoral votes. Yes, it would be nice to debate things like grown ups, but until the Democratic party kicks the shit out the GOP at their own game, that won't be possible.

8/24/2008 6:36 PM  
Blogger Roy Lofquist said...

Dear Dan,

I've been an avid follower of Presidential elections since 1952. They are never decided by policy issues. They are decided by emotion - gut feeling. The people are looking not for a man to get them a raise. They are looking for a leader who can protect them and theirs. The Democrats have won twice since 1968. Carter by a whisker in the wake of Watergate and Clinton when Ross Perot got 19% of the vote. After watching elections for almost 60 years. I would be astonished if Obama won.


8/24/2008 7:20 PM  
Blogger craig said...

Good post.

Anon @6:36
McCain has cortotioned (sp) himself like a slinky to avoid anything about race. Obama is the one bringing it up.

8/24/2008 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think that is exactly their point. It's not that McCain is rich. Rather they are saying that he is rich and doesn't care to help struggling US families who aren't.

The folks supporting McCain on this comment page and throughout the country are supporting a guy that ran 10 years ago. That is not the same guy today. 75 position changes since 1999 have proved that.

8/24/2008 10:15 PM  
Anonymous No Wonder the Good Ones Lose said...

Typical liberal: more willing to make a joke that makes a bigoted greed-monger look "ok" than to talk about the serious shortcomings of a man who would hurt a large portion of the population, if elected president.

Once again you are fucking-idiot Dan, but feel free to push the beads and mumble while you expect change with out effort.

8/24/2008 10:31 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Dianne - Sorry, but you're talking about the pre-flipflop McCain. He changed his position, and voted against the bill to make the CIA follow the Army Field Manual.

Roy - you forget that Gore defeated Bush in 2000.

No Wonder - why so hateful?

8/25/2008 12:54 AM  
Blogger Roy Lofquist said...

Dear Dan,

So how come Albert Gore is going to conferences and George Bush is living in the White House?

This is going to hurt: "My friend, ...".

Yes, I vote Republican. Always have and hope I live long enough to see the next election. Fascinating - better than soap operas.

I am offering an assessment based upon a fairly long time watching Presidential elections. I, and my parents, have spent most of our lives with the Democrats in control of the government. It has been a remarkable period of growth an prosperity. I am not at all alarmed or concerned with the prospect of a change in governments.

I call 'em as I see 'em. Though at my age I do need reading glasses.


8/25/2008 1:44 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Roy - I appreciate the perspective, and I hope that, even if you have your mind made up this time, you have the opportunity to vote for Obama in his race for his second term.

Believe me, I understand your perception that Republicans wind up prevailing in presidential contests. Right now, I feel tremendously confident in Obama, but I felt tremendously confident about Gore and Kerry, too, and almost every democratic candidate all the way back to my first election as an adult - when I could not really believe that Reagan would prevail against Carter. So age has brought me a humble willingness to admit you may be correct, though I won't believe it until the electoral college casts its votes.

8/25/2008 6:36 AM  
Blogger les said...

It's not the wealth--they're all beyond common. It's that he never earned it, never succeeded on his own and has no idea what reality most of us live with. He's an extension of the WPE admin, in more than just Gramm-inspired economic...plans.

8/25/2008 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Which candidate is fit to assume the constitutional duties as President? And why?

8/25/2008 10:07 AM  
Blogger Brian Rules the World said...

Has there been a presidential candidate who wasn't rich? At least since Honest Abe, that is...

Personally, it's not his money that bothers me, though the whole not-knowing-how-many-houses-he-owns thing was a bit ridiculous, it's the fact that the campaign has barely started and McCain's already slinging mud left and right... At least wait until after the DNC to start the personal attacks...

8/25/2008 12:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home