Monday, July 07, 2008

Back In Red, White, and Blue

Or some such thing.

It's been nearly a month and now that I'm finally married, back home, and settled, I'm having trouble getting going on the blog. Not that there's not a lot to talk about- It's just hard to get the ball rolling.

I suppose I'll start with some personal comments- The wedding was wonderful and we were seemingly blessed with the only nice weekend of the past month, so basically, I have no complaints. My bride was lovely, the location- overlooking the ocean on the Connecticut shore- was tremendous, the food was delicious, and a good time was had by all. For our honeymoon, the new Mrs. Lonely libertarian and myself spent a week in Barbados, which was relaxing as expected, but also proved to be much more intellectually stimulating then I had expected. (Look for more on Barbados at some point later on.)

Our return flight was a bit of a disaster as our Air Jamaica plane somehow managed to find itself over 5 hours beyond schedule. This resulted in a horrid evening spent in Barbados' Grantley Adams International Airport terminal, with nothing to watch on the overhead televisions but tennis and CNN's repeats of Larry King and Anderson Cooper 360. Anderson Cooper 360 literally replayed the moment the initial hour had ended. I generally like news discussion programs, but it wasn't a pretty moment. The worst was all the Obama-McCain nonsense, which at this point mostly amounts to a not of nothing. My interest in what the talking heads have to say about "how the campaign is going?" Zilch to zero. Being stuck in the airport made me realize how I can despise all the election nonsense. So for the purposes of this blog, I'm declaring a moratorium on the political campaigns. Policy, as always, is fair game, but I don't want to hear anything more about speeches or who said what or what celebrities are saying about which candidate.

The biggest news while I was away seems to have been some of the Supreme Court decisions, which I'll hopefully have time to read and discuss here. Thoughts on those decisions are welcome, as are any thoughts on other important news that may have arisen during my absence.


Anonymous rose said...

I'm sure you'll address this topic at some point soon.

We're winning in Iraq. The media is doing their best job to ignore report after report about the progress being made, certainly because their presidential candidate is invested in the war's failure and all of 8 of their original nominees opposed the troop surge which is working. The media is allowing the dems to deceive the american public about the progress.

I mean the cost of this war in blood and money has been and will continue to be unbelievable painful. And opposing the INITIATION of war on those grounds is 100% legitimate.

But we simply had to figure out a way to finish what we started in one way or another. And now there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

And while opposing the initation of war is completely understandable, denying the progress being made is one of the most shameful political moves imaginable. And it is being carried out by the democratic party and being facilitated by the media.

Petraeus and our troops on the ground have done amazing things in the last year. It's a shame the vast majority of American's aren't aware of it. The light at the end of the tunnel that seemed impossible in 2005 is there.

Lots of talk about patriotism from politicians recently. Intetionally denying the progress in Iraq is one of the most unpatriotic, traiterous political acts I can possibly imagine.

4:04 PM  
Blogger lonely libertarian said...

What's interesting from a campaign perspective is how Iraq has been generally ignored throughout the process. Agree or disagree with him on the issue, McCain has at least been consistent. Obama on the other hand has weaseled his way through the primaries and is attempting to weasel his way into the White House. One of the reasons I see little difference between McCain and Obama is because I think in the end, their Iraq policies- and their foreign policy in general- will be very similar. (Up to and including issues like Gitmo and torture.) But as I said, McCain has been up front, while Obama has drifted back and forth between appeasing the moderate middle-of-the-roaders and the anti war left.

What I don't understand is why so many anti-war protesters are actually excited about Obama. If bringing the troops home is the big issue for you, I just don't see how you can justify an Obama vote.

Like I was saying though, I think it showcases how far Iraq had fallen from the national radar. I'm more than a bit worried that this election won't turn on any issues at all, rather it will turn on minutia and the candidates ability to pander to voters economic worries.

I may have mentioned it before, but I don't blog much about Iraq because I have little say about it, and, more importantly, I feel drastically under informed. From everything I've read it seems the surge does seem to be working, which is a good thing, but doesn't answer the questions about our long term presence in Iraq. McCain's 100 year comment was troubling, not because it implied a continuation of hostilities he didn't actually mean, but because it implies a long term military presence in the Middle East which to me, seems unwise.

10:06 AM  
Anonymous rose said...

I refer you to the great Charles Krauthammer. You won't find a more logical, concise, easy to follow writer.

"The United States (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.

Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for the vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.

The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq war, McPeak (an Iraq war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)"

Here's the whole article.

I'd urge you to read more of this guys work. Nothing is longer than a 5 minute read. I think it's worth your time.

11:21 AM  
Anonymous rose said...

So Obama's running an ad linking McCain to Bush's "big-oil tax breaks", despite the fact that the specific bill Bush crafted in 2005 was voted for by Obama and against by McCain...I can't even get into how big a fraud this guy has proven himself to be, I'll have an aneurysm.

Hey lib, remember when you were outraged at Obama's denounciation of Wright because it signaled he was willing to abandon his own core beliefs for political gain?

And I was kind of shocked that someone so well-read and logical was just catching onto how big a fraud obama was.

Remember that?

Whaddya say now? You sick to your stomach yet?

2:42 PM  
Blogger lonely libertarian said...

I'm not sure I was outraged as much as disappointed. Like plenty of people who still seem to think so, it was nice to believe there was a politician out there who was a bit different. (Plus, he is a gifted speaker.)

It's not that disheartening, it's more just ho-hum, politics as usual.

That all being said though - Obama is a far superior candidate than either Al Gore or John Kerry was for the Democrats, although that's not saying very much.

And with all the crap he had to take, it was easy to defend Bush and rally around him. McCain has the added problem of not having been compared to Hitler.

3:14 PM  
Blogger McMc said...

I'm not sure I ever harped in on the whole Wright thing, but let me just say I think you're both off. I don't think Obama denouncing Wright "signaled he was willing to abandon his own core beliefs for political gain". And I don't think that Obama doing that was an indication that he was "just another politician".

Ultimately, I think the whole thing was a lot more personal than political. At first, it did seem nice that Obama stuck by his friend, regardless of his beliefs. Some people tried to argue that meant Obama believed what Wright believed, and I simply don't think that's true. As Wright kept getting more exposure though, he continued to exploit it, at his friend's expense. Obama's decision to denounce Wright had political overtones, but in the end I think it was more of a scorned friend taking action. Wright got greedy and exploited Obama's campaign for his own gain, and I don't blame Obama for doing what he did. Is it disappointing? Not necessarily. After all, would you stand by a friend if they continued to to do/say crazy things at your expense, especially with this much at stake? I don't think so.

4:39 AM  
Blogger lonely libertarian said...

Mc Mc, here's why it was a typical political move.

It's not like these things Wright was saying were new to Obama- or at least they shouldn't have been if he really was "Obama's Pastor." I agree that it became a personal matter, but it seems to me that everything both men were saying was much more about politics than about, I dunno, anything really important in life.

11:02 AM  
Blogger McMc said...

Here's the thing, Obama refused to denounce Wright because of what he said during sermons, something a lot a more private. With more media attention, Wright continued to use the spotlight to push his own agenda and beliefs. And remember, Wright was doing this at the expense of Obama. Maybe what was said by Wright wasn't new to Obama, and maybe some of it actually was...the point is, I don't think it's fair to say Obama was disappointing by not sticking by someone who was repeatedly damaging his campaign and reputation. Maybe it's more political than I give it credit for, but I think it was something anyone would do.

2:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home