Sunday, October 26, 2008

Too charitable.

Dave Schuler is too charitable in his blog post "Both Candidates Suck". He opens with the following:

In just ten days either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama will be elected president of the United States. Of that there can be little doubt. I’m still struggling with a decision on which candidate I’ll vote for because, simply and more coarsely than I generally express myself, both candidates suck.
Later he writes:
I think that both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are good, decent, honorable men.
Based on the political careers of both men, I'm not sure that either man can be described as good, decent or honorable. Obama has been willing to do anything and associate with anyone to win, apparently for no other purpose than to gain power for himself. McCain hasn't been quite as bad, but given that he dumped his first wife for a rich, connected hottie, he hasn't had to do as much as Obama on that front. But McCain has been quite willing to use his power for his own personal gain. (See his actions against mixed martial arts and his campaign finance "reform" work.) Frankly I think that both of them are crooks, indecent and bad men. Unfortunately, limited government has been destroyed in this country so the election of such men will do more and more damage.

8 comments:

XWL said...

Frankly I think that both of them are crooks, indecent and bad men.

They're both born Senators, which is why I don't understand how we ended up with a choice between two Senators.

Been a long time since somebody's jumped from the Senate to the White House.

reader_iam said...

Frankly I think that both of them are crooks, indecent and bad men.

In all seriousness, with utter respect, and no offense whatsoever intended, would you mind sharing examples of those you think are contra that, and also which past presidents are exemplars of the opposite? I mean, I'm actually curious (just curious-not poised for anything other than curiosity satisfied, and even that I'm OK with not getting).

reader_iam said...

XWL: Have you been particularly impressed with governors, in general? How about state reps and senators?

Again, my intent is not disrespectful nor dismissive. What I am doing is merely asking.

Icepick said...

I'm too tired to answer the question you directed at me, RIA, so I will try again tomorrow. But I will take a stab at your question to XWL.

The US Senate seems to attract a combination of the most mentally dull and most arrogant people in public life. Or perhaps it's that the Senate attracts the most successful dullards in the land. Once there they all become imperious and full of themselves to a level unmatched by any other group of people this side of Hollywood. The combination of only having to run every six years, the relative scarcity of Senators (as opposed to Representatives) and the lack of any real executive authority or accountability makes them completely impervious to any sense of humility.

Presidents have too many day to day responsibilities, and get their teeth kicked in by events too often, to become too clueless. Representatives have to run every two years, so they're constantly scrambling for support and money, plus there's hundreds of them. They can't become completely removed from a sense of personal urgency. But Senators? Wow. My personal belief is that each state send to the two most stupid people they can find and sends them to Washington to keep them from fucking up their home states by their presense.

But consider the three Senators on the national tickets. Look at the list of gaffes made by Obama, Biden and McCain in the last several weeks and months - it's endless, and highly embarassing to each, if the records were examined bluntly. Biden is an idiot, pure and simple. McCain is a hip shot artist that shoots himself in the foot more often than he hits any other target. Obama is so full of his own press clippings that he doesn't seem to have spent any time actually learning what the fuck his job is. And all three are bores and bullies. I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than have to spend an evening having dinner with any of them.

XWL said...

The habits of the Senate contain the worst aspects of political privilege and blame deflecting. At least governors have some accountability, and while you do have Carter as a negative example there are able administrators such as Reagan and Clinton who came out of the ranks of those running a state (GW Bush's faults aren't based on having been a governor, but more about his reliance on elevating Texas cronies beyond their level of competence, plus in time his reputation may improve).

GHW Bush had held many positions of some kind of authority before being plucked for the VP slot, which lead to his presidency, so at least he had some accountability for his actions.

All that is wrong with Senators can be summed up in Sen. Biden's time in the national spotlight. He's been an awful campaigner, yet he thinks of himself as brilliant and beyond reproach.

I think there's a good reason we haven't elected a serving Senator since Warren Harding.

Icepick said...

I think there's a good reason we haven't elected a serving Senator since Warren Harding.

You forgot JFK in 1960.

reader_iam said...

GHWB had an actual resume, that's true, and I've come to appreciate it more than I did then.

Also, I assume you both recall my small, useless voice in favor of restructuring terms of service, which has at least a little bit of relevance in context. But that's all just pie in the sky, and now't a thing can come of it.

XWL said...

You forgot JFK in 1960.

Well, that's something to aspire to, crisis after crisis, mixed with a cult of personality and a press corp that covers up for a deeply flawed individual morally and touts the intellectual prowess of a decidedly mediocre mind.

(had he not been killed, he may not have been electable by 1964, at some point his bad decisions would have caught up with him, but martyrdom saved his reputation, transformed him into the left's favorite myth of what might have been)