Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"Contrarian That I Am..."

Can I ever relate to that! Yes, contrary to the constant badgering of my family, there is no way in freakin' HELL I will ever vote for Obama. Not ever gonna happen,I keep telling them, and for the HOST of reasons about which I have written ad nauseum, at this point. If you need a recap, suffice it to say I will not vote for the most arrogant, condescending, homophobic, lying, bullying, cheating (with help from the DNC), unqualified, inexperienced, race baiting, Authoritarian Socialistic misogynist ever. I mean, NEVER. Apparently, neither will Charles Krauthammer, a commentator who is growing on me (H/T to SusanUnPC at No Quarter for this article).

Recently, in this article, McCain for President, Dr.Krauthammer
endorsed McCain. Dr. Krauthammer laid it all out there, saying what a lot of us out here think, too:
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

Well, good for him. Scott McClellan apparently couldn't sign up fast enough, the man who served as Bush's mouthpiece for the war is now an Obama supporter. Funny, I haven't heard any disdain coming out from the Obamabots about him. Or "If We Don't Invade Iraq We Will Be Awash In White Powder" Powell. I guess it's okay that the man who SOLD the war so many of us oppose, and one of the MAIN reasons Obamabots claim they support Obama, now endorses an Obama presidency is somehow a great achievement to these people. Logic is not their strong suit, apparently.

Krauthammer continues:
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Here is what is so, so, so sad about this whole election campaign. An amazingly qualified candidate had her decades' worth of experience minimized and belittled by her opponent, her party, members of her party, and the media, largely because she is a woman. Had anyone else had that breadth and depth of experience, they would be glorified. And now they have started on McCain, but taking a different tact. Now it is that McCain is so old his experience doesn't matter - it's old school, and we're the new kids on the block. Get out the way, Gramps - the cool kids are coming through now, and they're gonna show you how it's REALLY done. Never mind that these wet-behind-the-ears pups haven't the FOGGIEST into what they are getting themselves. They have proclaimed The One to be the cat's meow, and he can do no wrong. Especially since they haven't bothered to listen to what he actually SAYS he is going to do or how he is going to do it. I reckon they think they'll just be getting a check from him if he's elected, and that's all they need. Either way, experience is BAD - inexperience is GOOD!!! Sheesh.

Krauthammer won't put up with all of the Obama Camp nonsense, though, thank heavens:
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Halle-damn-lujah - Someone is saying what we have been saying. How is it that Obama has continued this relationship with this man, this "educator" trying to radicalize the youth of Chicago, who bombed the Pentagon and our Capitol Building? How can that possibly be? I think we all know the answer to that question, and the recently revealed video tapes in which Obama expresses his true ideology are confirmed. Though Barbara West, she of the interview with Biden that actually tried to get answers, said that Obama said himself, in his book, that he was intrigued by Marxism, and sought out friends with a Marxist bent. I'll provide that video for you at the end of this post. The point is that we should ALL have been offended by Obama's relationship to Ayers, not excusing it.

The good doctor continues his explanation for his choice, including the race-baiting of the Obama camp:
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

Is this a trick question? Well, I agree with Krauthammer when he writes:
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

Do the Obama people just want to pretend all of McCain's qualifications don't exist because of his age, or because he is Republican, or because if they do acknowledge it, they will negate their own campain? In any event, so far, they have been allowed to get away with it, courtesy of the Fourth Estate. Most of the MSM never acknowledge McCain's stand on the economy, all the way back to 2005, and Obama's bounty from the very people who got us into this economic mess. No, rather they lump McCain into the pool of people they claim are responsible for the misfortune facing so many, TOO may, people in this country now. Apparently, creating news has become more important than reporting news, at least when it comes to Obama and McCain. And while I was opposed to the surge, thinking it was a bad idea, I have to admit that it does seem to be working now. Rather than give McCain the credit he deserves for knowing that from the beginning, media prefers to rationalize away Obama's stand, or they seem to steer away from any discussion of what is happening in Iraq at all these days. That seems to be how they deal with everything - ignore, obfuscate, justify, manipulate, lie.

Yep, that Dr. Krauthammer is one smart man, I have to say. While I do not agree with him on everything in general, I agree with him on this: McCain is far more qualified, both in terms of experience and in terms of character, to lead this country.

As promised, here is the Barbara West piece in which she explains where she got her questions to ask Joe Biden about Obama's socialistic tendencies. Obama himself, of course:


Grail Guardian said...


You can color me surprised, too, to be agreeing with the good Dr. Who would have thought...

As far as why Obama's supporters follow him so blindly and irrationally, I have a theory:

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

I know, GG - it is astonishing what strange bedfellows this election has made!

And you can BET I will be boycotting Obama's "Praise Me!" infomercial! Thanks for the link!