Friday, November 20, 2009

Comment on The Belmont Club,
"The PACmen"


The biggest puzzle for me was why did the Republicans hold back and not aggressively challenge Obama and his corruption? John McCain is a decent man. He wanted to be President. He sincerely asked people to work for him and spent years working for it. While I was a volunteer and driver for the campaign I met him several times and do not think he wanted to lose. He was personally decent and generous to me. Before the last debate the campaign brought me in to have a private photo with John and Cindy and Sarah and Todd. That was when the big donors were getting their photos taken. I got to exchange a few words with him and I told him to "Expend all ordnance." He looked exhausted and clearly kew that the polls said he was going to lose. He held back, he assured the public that Obama was decent and honorable and it would be OK if he became President. Why? The reason simply escapes me, unless McCain was convinced that he would lose and it was important for America to try and heal the wounds.

McCain should have stared Obama down and said, "Why are you so arrogant?" He should have said that he did not believe the birther line but that a decent respect for the public required releasing all your documents, including birth and educational records, before asking for the job. He should have forced the issue on national television about phone banks in Gaza and bundling of foreign money and the hypocrisy of the Democrats reneging on their pledge to use the public campaign finance system. Why did McCain hold back? If you fight a campaign, win. Obama used about 3/4 Billion dollars, half foreign and illegal. McCain had the chance to strike when the world was watching. It was the only way to break past the blanket media endorsement of Obama.

He held back and now are all stranded as the barbarians sweep around us. We are like the Byzantines after Manzikert.

2 comments:

Pascal Fervor said...

Everything you saw tells you something was wrong with McCain. Were it not for your sense of loyalty (at least that is what I surmise) you might reach the conclusion that is screaming in the recesses of your mind. I'll not fault you for it.

Who I fault are the power brokers and media manipulators (who have their reasons) who rigged the primaries so that you did not have a more vigorous candidate upon whom to bestow your loyalty.

And what I fear most is that we will never learn how to overcome those who are still busily spinning their intrigues. The fit hits the shan first, and that imbroglio seems to be okay with the schemers.

Whether the knickknacks are knocked off the shelf, or the shelf collapses from termite damage, it's gonna be bad for the knickknacks. Schemers have no sentiment, let alone loyalty, for knickknacks.

Pascal Fervor said...

Everything you saw tells you something was wrong with McCain. Were it not for your sense of loyalty (at least that is what I surmise) you might reach the conclusion that is screaming in the recesses of your mind. I'll not fault you for it.

Who I fault are the power brokers and media manipulators (who have their reasons) who rigged the primaries so that you did not have a more vigorous candidate upon whom to bestow your loyalty.

And what I fear most is that we will never learn how to overcome those who are still busily spinning their intrigues. The fit hits the shan first, and that imbroglio seems to be okay with the schemers.

Whether the knickknacks are knocked off the shelf, or the shelf collapses from termite damage, it's gonna be bad for the knickknacks. Schemers have no sentiment, let alone loyalty, for knickknacks.