Texas Rainmaker
McCain for President
October 24th, 2008 5:46 pm

Charles Krauthammer weighs in:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
It Doesn’t Have to Happen…
October 24th, 2008 1:31 pm

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
The Truth Hurts
October 18th, 2008 3:13 pm

The Democrats offer America failed policies, resistance to reform in the face of impending crisis resulting from those failed policies, the most inexperienced candidate in Presidential history who’s also the most liberal member of a Senate their party controls that enjoys a single-digit approval rating.

It’s no coincidence that bad news for America (whether it’s foreign policy or domestic economy) translates into good news for Democrats. Think about it.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

Here’s John McCain’s speech at the Alfred E. Smith dinner tonight in New York. He does a great job of being humorous while getting some body blows in on The Socialist.

Part 1:

Part 2:

…and then it was Barack’s turn. Interestingly, when he tries to be funny, he isn’t… but when he tries to talk seriously about his policies, I’ll admit, I laugh my ass off.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (8) Comments
5 Questions for Democrats…
October 14th, 2008 11:59 pm

1. If you’re so concerned about Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the Presidency because she lacks experience, how do you explain your support for the inexperienced Barack Obama being THE heartbeat?

2. Why do you think a candidate’s links to George Bush is cause for concern, but a candidate’s links to Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko aren’t?

3. If Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice weren’t black enough, why is the half-black Barack Obama okay?

4. Why do you think it’s not racist to vote for Barack based on his skin color, but would scream racism if someone voted for McCain because of his?

5. Why did you believe Joe Biden when he said Barack Obama was not ready to be President, but don’t believe John McCain when he says it?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment

Here’s a hint:

Sen. John McCain’s 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below.

McCain’s letter — signed by nineteen other senators — said that it was “…vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]…operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either…should fail.”

Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat.

Here is the actual letter:

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
Palin-McCain 2008
October 6th, 2008 7:07 pm

Conservatives, want a bumper sticker that really expresses your take on the 2008 election?

Click to purchase

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

UPDATE: Looks like YouTube banned the previous video claiming copyright infringement by Time Warner Group for the background music. I wonder why

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment

Let’s just take stroll down memory lane and see who was doing what in Washington, oh say, about 5 years ago….

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

Remember this when Democrats try to blame President Bush and Republicans for the current economic fiasco.

And if that’s not enough, how about this:

Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago.

Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.

A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.

Hope and change, my friends… hope and change.

Now remember, he’s only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn’t afford them

Surprise, surprise…

UPDATE: Since the media seems unconcerned with Obama’s affiliations with domestic terrorists and convicted criminals, maybe they’ll ask a few questions about Obama’s ties to the mortgage/financial crisis:

Don’t hold your breath, though…

UPDATE 2: More from Bloomberg:

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that’s worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (4) Comments

Ever since John McCain announced Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, the Democrats have been running around talking about inexperience. Not really a subject the Democrats should be putting front and center in their campaign that features a candidate at the top of their ticket who’s biggest accomplishments are “community organizing” and a speech in 2002.

Nevertheless, experience is suddenly an issue for them in the campaign as they attack Palin’s experience… which happens to be more executive experience, and more experience on energy and troop command than either of the two guys on the Democrat ticket.

And the MSM is also suddenly concerned about experience in the Presidential race… and in their breathless support of their Democrat candidates they’re trying to paint the Presidential matchup as being between the Republican VP nominee and the Democrat Presidential choice - because they know John McCain has more experience than Obama has years on this earth.

It’s ironic that they’re questioning the McCain/Palin ticket because the V.P. might not be ready to lead this country, while they’re supporting a ticket where the TOP of the ticket is equally, or more, ill-equipped to lead the nation.

But it seems even the Democrat candidates themselves are trying to, subconciously or not, confuse the American public as to who’s actually at the top of their ticket.

Here’s Joe Biden this weekend:

“I will be back, I’ll be back to campaign in earnest,” Biden said, “but today is not the moment for me to campaign. Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what’s happening down there” in the Gulf Coast.

And here was Obama introducing Biden as his running mate:

So let me introduce to you the next president

Maybe they figure they’ll catch some folks not paying attention who will vote for the Biden/Obama ticket. Then again, they think their base is made up of idiots, so it might work.

UPDATE: Obama responds to the issue that McCain’s VP choice actually has more executive experience than he does by claiming that his running for President makes him more qualified to be President. Huh?

“Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin’s town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we’ve got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years. Uh, and certainly, in terms of, uh, the legislation that I’ve passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina, uh, of how we handle emergency management. The fact that, uh, many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place, uh, as we speak indicates to extent to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.”

As Ed puts it:

By that standard, anyone who ever ran for any public office has executive experience — and that also kills their own experience argument against Palin anyway.

It is interesting, though, that everytime the Democrats refer to Palin’s executive experience, (aside from forgetting that the highly experienced John McCain is running against Obama at the top of the ticket) they point to her experience as a Mayor of a small town and completely ignore the fact that she’s been governor of a state for several years. And the motive is obvious.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes

Copyright © 2003-2006

Users Online



    • HuckPac.com

    • sidediv

    • sidediv


    Fatal error: Call to undefined function wswwpx_fold_category_list() in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/sidebar.php on line 62