Thursday, August 28, 2008

If Only - McCain on Obama

This is the speech I'd give after Sen. Obama's nomination if I was Sen. McCain.

I would like to congratulate Senator Obama on being the first African-American nominated for the presidency by a major party. This is a singular achievement that shows us how far America has come from some of the shameful moments in our not-too-distant past.

But now we have to talk about the issues, and on every meaningful issue, Senator Obama is wrong.

Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on employers in a limping economy -- a move Herbert Hoover taught us was a mistake.

Mr. Obama wants to achieve energy independence by the slowest conceivable route, continuing to transfer massive amounts of American wealth to people who oppose us in the mean time.

Mr. Obama thinks the way to fix the flaws in the finest health care system in the world is by putting federal beaurocrats in charge.

Mr. Obama sees the judiciary as an unelected legislature, able to make changes to our society that the voters don't support.

Mr. Obama sees the war in Iraq as a distraction from the war of terror rather than as an extension of it. He doesn't understand that if we beat al Qaida in Iraq, we won't have to fight them in LA, Chicago, or Miami.

Mr. Obama believes letting a baby die alone on a table is necessary to protect Roe v Wade. Even NARAL disagreed.

And Mr. Obama thinks he is a reformer when he has passed on every opportunity he has been given to work toward real, meaningful reform in both Illinois and the US Senate.

I congratulate Senator Obama on his historic achievement, but I think the American people know that this country does not need an Obama presidency.

They know this nation needs an economic policy that will keep capital in the market.

They know this nation needs to reduce energy costs and end our country's dependence on foreign energy sources as quickly as possible.

They know our country's health care system needs work, but we can improve it only by putting you in control of your health care.

They know this country needs a judiciary determined to interpret the law, not make it.

They know this nation can only keep itself safe if we totally defeat our enemies rather than leaving when things get tough, or worse, on the cusp of victory.

They know we lose nothing by protecting the most helpless among us and that we lose ourselves if we refuse.

And they know that real reform means taking a hard look at our government, daring to touch the third rails and to question the sacred -- like pork barrel spending, excessive regulation, and government agencies and programs which have lasted long past their usefulness.

The American people know what this country needs, and in November I am confident they will choose the candidate with the experience, judgment, and determination to lead this nation to new heights.


Anonymous said...

Why is "federal bureaucrats" automatically a curse word? All government employees are bureaucrats and yes, it would be better to have them in charge of the health care system because they wouldn't be motivated by profit, they would only need public approval and a government salary.

We are not going to "beat Al Qaeda" in Iraq. They don't live there. Yes, there are a lot of Iraqis who hate America, and many of them are ideologically aligned with Al Qaeda, a lot of them probably share their name and/or have monetary ties. But they, as an organization, do not have a "headquarters" in Iraq, nor is there a "Boss" we can kill to destroy the group, not even Osama. Al Qaeda is everywhere, even America, but mostly between Morocco and Turkey. There are hundreds of unrelated groups with similar, destructive religious philosophies who use that name because it now commands attention. The only way Al Qaeda will die is if young Muslims stop growing up believing in a horrifically misguided worldview. We aren't going to do that by killing more people in Iraq. That's what they see America as, killers.

ChrisB said...

Why is "federal bureaucrats" automatically a curse word?
Because most people experience with a federal agency is one of gross inefficiency and incompetence.

Enlightened self-interest (in this case, profit) makes people do all kinds of great things for other people. From the inside I can tell you that a great many in health care are not interested in money beyond staying in the black, but profit is not, in and of itself, wrong.

However, everywhere the feds touch health care things go wrong. Federal regulation makes health care providers do a great many things as inefficiently as possible, makes many things unnecessarily complex, and retards innovation. It also makes health insurance more expensive than it might otherwise be.

The FDA makes companies spend years and years and billions of dollars to bring us fine products like Fen-Phen. The VA treats our vets with the best treatments 1995 had to offer.

Which federal agency is so efficient that you'd like to put them in charge of your health care?

Re: al Qaida, though all of al Qaida isn't in Iraq, they have brought in a great many people and devoted a great amount of resources to fighting us in Iraq. Not only are they losing the fight, they're losing the PR battle by losing the fight.

Yes, some are so offended by Americans being in Iraq that they're going to join up, but many more are seeing that the bluster about al Qaida's strength and our weakness is just that -- bluster.

The only way Al Qaeda will die is if young Muslims stop growing up believing in a horrifically misguided worldview.
And to do that they need to see a functioning Arab democracy in the Middle East. Saddam helped us choose Iraq.

Allan R. Bevere said...


When it comes to the federal bereaucrats issue, many years ago when I was an associate pastor at a large church, we had a day care center. We decided to take government funds; the rules and regulations and the restrictions were so severe, that the money receive was not close to being worth the trouble.

/* -------------- -----analytics code */