As the political rants continue
Before going to work yesterday I saw a bit of “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.” Of course I was working on a business spreadsheet on my laptop when I was trying to take in what passed for a “debate” on Blitzer’s talk-a-thon. Actually, it was more like a screamfest. As two presidential supporters either explained why their candidate: McCain or Obama ought to be elected or why the opposing candidate should not be. Well, the Republican supporter of course attacked Obama as flipping and flopping on every issue. All that I heard was Obama initially making the argument that he would “withdraw the troops immediately” during the primary season in the midst of Democratic debates. Which anyone at the time would not have argued would be feasible. A bit later, Obama makes the argument, “within 16 months.” Which would be a more rational approach. His ultimate goal did not change, to ultimately remove American troops from Iraq. A flip flop would be to make the argument that troops should be withdrawn then decide that if elected, Obama would indeed keep them in Iraq to guarantee our “victories” there. But then again, the ranter and raver on Blitzer’s show would probably argue that Obama had smartened up and only the anti war “left” would be mad at him. So, is Obama running for saint hood? Last I checked, no. Is he running to present a one-note song campaign? Or is there actually room between now and November for Senator Obama to flesh out his domestic and foreign policy views? I would certainly think so. But the McCain supporter seemed to think that Obama has a problem if he does indeed flesh out his domestic and foreign policy views. He “flip flops.” How about that.
So by deflecting the “flip flopping problem” to Obama, does that mean the McCain supporter can ignore the big time flip flops of McCain on “every issue?” Take for example the latest McCain ad: McCain now wants health care to be both affordable and portable. I think McCain is running for the wrong presidency. If he wants health care to be portable and affordable, he needs to be president of some health care industry, from insurance to the manufacturing of medicine and medical technology or even the setting up of hospitals and the sort of fees they can demand for the use of their services. Or even what payments doctors can demand for the use of their time. After all, Senator McCain as president of the United States would use the powers of government to reform the health care aspects of the market place. And he was absolutely opposed to inviting the gvt into such a market place to begin with. He attacked Obama’s health care plans you see as a gvt can do everything for you. But now consider this, in order to make health care more affordable and portable (as insurance) from one job to the next or even in between jobs, it would take gvt activism. And McCain bought into something that had been a Democratic party platform ever since the 1990s. So is McCain for federal activism or he isn’t? That is what truly counts as a flip flop.
And meanwhile — Cal Thomas now that he has a primary target in Senator Obama accusing him of “socialism” and further encouraging the “victimology of the can’t do spirit” well then I can only wonder what McCain’s own catering to the same “can’t do spirit” with his own ad would do to swiftly undermine Thomas’ attack editorial (republished to the Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Washington). Question: can the American consumer approach Squibb, Bristol-Meyers directly and ask of them to make safe medicines, medicines that people truly need, medicines that don’t make people sick from the side affects, medicines that don’t get pulled from the market when people die as result, medicines that won’t result in lawsuits as advertised routinely on TV ads? Or will such industry giants only listen if a beefed up FDA cracks down on them? That is, an FDA run by President Obama instead of McCain? We already know that Thomas is a voice for big business. And maybe that “can’t do spirit” is being voiced by people who are looking at a market place running amok because it is demanding that the consumer tell the doctor what’s wrong with them and that they need this medicine that they don’t know will actually help them. Or may in fact kill them. I know I can’t handle that, in my middle years I have enough problems now that I don’t need the pills advertised to exacerbate the problems. Seems to me that the medical industry should be considering what’s in its (market place wise) best interests. But apparently they have their own “can’t do spirit.” They want gvt to lend them generous support. And it only becomes “socialism” if the American consumer gets any kind of benefit for changes in how health care works.
On the issue of Iraq, Michael Barone rehashes all the old falsehoods about our “successes” in Iraq. There is no question about our military successes. At least for a while, violence dropped by considerable. But what McCain looked for as had GW himself, was that “the surge” was supposed to produce certain political successes too. Had they? Which puts Obama on the side of history that ultimately argues: At some point we must leave, you are a sovereign people, at some point you have to take control over your own destiny. Perhaps our greatest success will be in withdrawing and then watching that people begin reaching for a solution on their own that benefits a people regardless of religion and religious sect. We can guarantee that it won’t happen by continuing to babysit them.