An Open Letter to John McCain

An Open Letter to John McCain

I write this letter as the father of three young children, girls who have become highly enthusiastic about the presidential race. Of course they’re rooting for you because their mother and I are. But down deep I know that the victory they are rooting for will result in a far better country and a better future than they are likely to get from Obama.

But we have to get there first. To do that we’re going to need something different from your team. You will have to stop missing opportunities to win over the winnable middle.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, but the following seven-point plan outlines at least some of what you have to do:

Distinguish yourself once and for all from President Bush. The attempts to pin him on you is to ignore the last eight years of direct conflict between you and the President. Among the most striking: You were in favor of having more troops in Iraq well ahead of President Bush. He did eventually sign on and push ahead with “The Surge.” But all of that was him catching up with you. Give him credit for coming around. But it was you who openly and heatedly argued at the time—and against the Administration—that we should have sent more troops to Iraq in the first place.

Stop letting Obama get away with saying he was “right” on not going into Iraq . His “rightness” about our not being welcomed as liberators must have been based on personal clairvoyance; it wasn’t based on the intelligence available at the time. Being right in hindsight is awfully easy. You need to point out that constantly taking credit for what amounted to luck (for Obama, not Saddam) and 20/20 hindsight reveals not “good judgment” but rather a character that may have trouble resisting the urge to reshape the truth.

Point out, publicly and persistently, that the chief problem with Obama’s position on Iraq was that he was willing to lose. As Robert McFarlane wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week, he acted as if losing was something America could take in stride, apparently just as he imagines we did with Vietnam . But I know personally: That narrative is false. Not only did we lose prestige in the world and embolden our enemies by allowing a numerous but politically immature generation to drive foreign policy and force us to abandon our friends—as certainly would have happened had we “strategically redeployed” from Iraq—but we also betrayed another group of people, people just a little younger than the so-called “boomers.” Those people, myself included, came of age post-Vietnam. That American “loss”—not to mention Watergate—handed us an America we were made to feel ashamed of, or at least vaguely embarrassed about. For many people my age, patriotism was “uncool,” lame or (more likely) just beside the point. Yes, the U.S. accomplished the lunar landing in 1969. But most of those I’m talking about were too young (I was only six) to fully appreciate that event, and Vietnam and later Watergate soon pushed all that off the front pages for years to come.

The point is, losing the war in Iraq would have the unintended consequence of alienating a whole new generation. That’s not the America I want to hand down to my daughters.

Attack Congress’s numerous and persistent failures. That’s a tough spot for you, but it has to be done. You must point out what those of us paying attention already know: Congressional Democrats routinely create a “disaster” only then to suggest themselves as the solution.

Do not let the American people forget that Congress has been in Democratic hands since 2006. And where have they been? Reid, Pelosi, Frank and Company’s recent accomplishments amount to little more than this:

Obstructing victory in Iraq by pre-declaring American failure;
Recklessly and deliberately creating a sense of economic despair for eight years; their “success” is now exacerbating the recent crisis;
Dragging their feet on drilling last summer, going home (to raise money) because, according to Pelosi, that just wasn’t Congress’s problem.

As for Obama, he was just “phoning it in” regarding the bailout issue—at least until President Bush called him.

The Democrats’ Congressional record is one of relentless failure. Call them out on it.

Explain, in plain and simple terms, how your tax plan will save and increase jobs—and how Obama’s plan to raise taxes on “big business” (those with incomes over $250K) will result in job cuts. Potentially massive job cuts. His plan will raise taxes on the very companies that employ thousands of Americans. For instance, according to cbsnews.com, InBev—the company that recently bought Anheuser-Busch, which includes American-icon company Budweiser—“has tried to soothe American fears of job losses by promising to keep open all 12 North American breweries… as long as the company did not face extra U.S. taxes.” This story goes right to the point. If companies have to pay more taxes, they will either leave altogether or be forced to lay off employees, back off on benefits, and, ultimately, pass costs on to consumers. No matter how Obama tries to parse it, we all lose. And by the way—if Obama wins, you can bet many people won’t like their rolled-back benefits. They’ll sign up for the government-backed plan in droves (until we bankrupt that system, too).

Do not let Americans in the middle forget Senator Obama’s cultural elitism and “celebrity” status. Just saying that he’s “liberal” is not nearly enough. Remind us that Hollywood and New York celebrities, academics, trial lawyers, the mainstream media and others who consistently attack traditional America and those who love it adore him. Remind us of his grating, condescending “clinging to their guns and religion” comment. Like the elitist cocktail set to which he belongs, he imagines that he knows best and that those who don’t agree are a bunch a ignorant, racist yahoos.

Last but not least:

Communicate authentic optimism about America . You must do this above all. Tell us in concrete terms that everything will be all right. Don’t give us false hope; show us there IS hope. That’s what I’ll vote for. Aside from cutting taxes, what should we—not just the government, but ALL of us—do? What version of America should we steer toward? That’s what the ideal president would tell us. Point the way in specific terms. Become the president by acting like a president. Right now.

In short: Give us clear reasons to vote for you. Make those reasons shine through the political and media fog. Talk over the media’s heads—straight to us.

As of tonight, 26 days remain until the election. You still have some time to make changes that may make all the difference. For all our sakes, Senator McCain, make them now.

We must not hand my daughters, your grandchildren, and children across the U.S. a self-doubting, self-reproaching nation that has become habitually ashamed of itself. All of that is to brood on the past. Sir, show us the future.

At Last, NYT Comes Clean

Can a 15-Year-Old Be a ‘Woman Without a Spouse’?

By BYRON CALAME
Published: February 11, 2007

The opening paragraph of the article sounded like grown-up stuff: “For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.”

Original article here

What an awesome quote:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

-- Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

Chumps at NWF

A response to the folks at the Inconvenient Truth blog at the World Wildlife Fund site.

Sorry, friends, but what a bunch of chumps. More Kool Aid, anyone?

News you can use: Lots of money, including multinational corporate money, is wrapped up in making you think we can do a lot about global warming. Why? So they can sell us stuff.

Who do you think is going to sell you all those special lightbulbs? Do the research and build the plants to produce alternate fuels? And millions of dollars are at stake in government grants, all to study global warming. Even the NWF website is part of the hype. It's an industry, folks.

GW is real, apparently, but the truth is we can't do much about it because we haven't caused that much of it. 10-20%, maybe.

The good news is, it won't be as bad as the hype. Even the new IPCC makes that much clear. Sorry, Al and company, catastrophe isn't likely. In the short run, all we can really do is figure out how to adapt. Living near the shore of a small Pacific island? Move inland or to the mainland.

For the rest of us, we'll need to work on these serious problems: What will we do with all that heating oil we won't need to heat our homes anymore? What will we do with all the newly productive farm land and longer growing seasons? What will we do with all the super cheap oil that will suddenly become available when demand drops? What will we do with the millions of impoverished Middle Eastern migrants leaving a region now even less inhabitable and even less viable economically, now that the world has turned away from its principal resource?

By the Numbers, New York Times Style

Once again, the NYT reports the news as they wish it was. They do an article which appears to suggest that women are rejecting marriage. And whom does the author, Sam Roberts (and Ariel Sabar, Brenda Goodman and Maureen Balleza, who "contributed reporting," no doubt by calling their friends or mothers or mothers' friends) talk to about this vital topic?

By the numbers:

Axe-grinding feminist professors with an agenda: 1
20-something women: 1
30-something women: 1
40-something women: 1
50-something women: 3
Women currently living in New York City: 2
Never-married women: 3
Women living in "red" states: 2
Working-class women: 0
Currently married women: 0
Women not living in large cities: 0

Nothing outrageous here, except when you consider that Prof. Stephanie Coontz, on whose research conclusions the article is based, is author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.” How is it seemingly all feminist social-science research magically supports the conclusions its author has already reached and on which her career is entirely based?

Amazingly, given that she's an "expert," she seems unsure about the historical precedence (and thus meaning) of her research. Ac cording to the article, "Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery." Probably unprecedented? If this is such a major development, and if she is such an expert, and given the pronouncements about public policy she's making (essentially that we shouldn't base it on marriage anymore), couldn't we reasonably expect that she would have been aware of the historical context of her own study?

January 16, 2007

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

By SAM ROBERTS
For what experts say is probably the first time, more American omen are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times nalysis of census results. more