Friday, October 10, 2008

Hypocrisy?

Hi

Just a small post to highlight some issues that could play a important role in this campaign and that actually highlight some fallacies of Obama. I am not campaigning for McCain as such (as you may remember I have already mentioned that I have stopped doing any more campaigning). But this is just a post which highlights some points that I feel are important.

When I evaluated both Obama and McCain in the beginning (that being the time when the primaries started), my mindshare has just two priorities - Patriotism and Hypocrisy. On the first parameter, McCain scored highly above Obama, although Obama's community services gave him some rating too. You can consider it a 80-20 rating in favour of McCain. On the scale of hypocrisy, it was 70-30 in favour of Obama i.e. But my overall rating was skewed towards patriotism and the added element of the Iraq war. both made me turn towards McCain in my mind. I found Obama to be less of a hypocrite as compared to McCain. But I was still suspicious. Mind you, this was before all the crisis of markets happening now. Let's see some of the points below.

1) On June 19, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976, reversing his earlier intention to accept it. (Wikipedia)

2) From this link, you can read that:

It appears that campaign finance records for Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, contain far fewer obviously false names, although he has taken in about $200 million in contributions, less than half Mr. Obama’s total. Mr. McCain did collect about $173,000 from donors who appear in campaign finance records with only a name and have no other identifying information. Mr. Obama collected about $314,000 from such donors.

The point to be noted is that this has come from the New York Times (supposed to be one of the most liberal newspapers)

3) Another reputed agency, The Associated Press, says:

Republican John McCain's campaign lists all his donors, even those who give less than $200, on his Web site. Asked why the Obama campaign doesn't do the same and open its database to the public, Axelrod said the campaign returns improper contributions."Obviously we've got a huge database of contributors," he said. "It's valuable to our campaign... We're probably more forthcoming about disclosure than anyone."

Hypocrite?

4) More fodder from TheHill.com:

In 1998, Obama was one of only three senators to vote against a proposal making it a criminal offense for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang.

On a 1999 vote making adult prosecution mandatory for aggravated discharge of a firearm in or near a school, the senator voted “present.” (Present means neither "Yes" nor "No"). He explained the vote, saying, “There is really no proof or indication that automatic transfers and increased penalties and adult penalties for juvenile offenses have, in fact, proven to be more effective in reducing juvenile crime or cutting back on recidivism.”

And in 2001, Obama voted “present” on a bill that would increase penalties for trafficking in Ecstasy and other designer drugs. The senator questioned the length of some drug penalties when compared to other crimes, noting that selling 15 tablets of Ecstasy was a Class X felony, as was raping a woman at knifepoint.

One really interesting point made by him was this one:

In 2001, Obama voted against a measure that would have expanded the penalties for some gang activity to include the death penalty. The bill was vetoed by then-Gov. George Ryan (R ) not long after he had issued a moratorium on the death penalty in the state. Obama, at the time, said the bill would unfairly target minorities, stating, “There’s a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color … I think it’s problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing.”

Hmmm... so Obama voted against a bill just because he felt it would make more people from his community be targeted (Blacks have the highest crime rate in the US than any other community). And they say he never used his race to decide things. I know that him, being from a poor background from a minority community, feels for his fellow brethren. But this bill did not specify black or white. It was talking about a set of crimes. If those crimes are committed by a black person, it doesn't mean that a black man can be tolerated more than a white man just because he is black and he must be used to such crimes anyways? That's true racism.

5) Finally, let's come to the financial crisis - Want to hear more? See Fox News link for 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. 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 also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate. Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.

Well, I think I have written enough. My hands are tired with all these copy-paste done by me. Let me come straight to my point - Obama is no less a hypocrite than McCain. McCain is accused of trying to fool the American Public, but atleast McCain's flaws are open for all to see (thanks to the liberal media). But where are Obama's flaws being highlighted?

Obama, when referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama" by his opponents, tries to label them as racists and people who are trying to propagate that he is a "secret Muslim". Well, just check out this page, which is the Wikipedia entry for Barack Obama and tell me now if calling him "Barack Hussein Obama" is still wrong or offensive. No one has stopped him from calling McCain as "John Sidney McCain". Why this favoritism anyways?

There are still more issues that are there with Obama, like that of his connection with William Ayers, something which I feel has been blown out of proportion. after reading all the stuff related to that, I am convinced that Obama had no significant connection with Ayers whatsoever.

The thing is, McCain has not been focusing on the real stuff that could have helped him at an earlier stage. For example, Jeremiah Wright could have been bought into the picture again and could have been used to portray the "sudden change in mind" and "going against one's own words" characteristics of Obama when he likened Wright to his father one day and denounced him a few days later. I must remind my readers that the same fundae were used by Obama against McCain on his words "The fundamentals of the economy are strong".

People have called for a clean campaign and honestly, I have not seen a clean campaign from both sides (yes, even Obama has run his share of negativity in the campaign). What is appalling is that McCain has tried his level-best to wage a clean campaign and win this election. One month left and the polls not suggesting a good outcome for him, McCain has become desperate. He is angry by nature and now it is exploding. He is fighting it out, but using the wrong stuff (Ayers is not a issue that is worth talking about at all). Where has the Jeremiah Wright gone? Where are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when you need them? Where is the inexperience issue?

Well, this is what happens in a last minute surge - you succeed or you lose. the surge in Iraq succeeded my friend, this surge may not work.

Barack Obama has accused McCain of voting with Bush 95% of the times - I agree. But he has also voted against some really important ones too. For example,

McCain began 2001 by breaking with the new George W. Bush administration on a number of matters, including HMO reform, climate change, and gun legislation; McCain-Feingold was opposed by Bush as well. In May 2001, McCain was one of only two Senate Republicans to vote against the Bush tax cuts. Besides the differences with Bush on ideological grounds, there was considerable antagonism between the two remaining from the previous year's campaign. (Wikipedia)

In May 2003, McCain voted against the second round of Bush tax cuts, saying it was unwise at a time of war. By November 2003, after a trip to Iraq, he was publicly questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, saying that more U.S. troops were needed; the following year, McCain announced that he had lost confidence in Rumsfeld. (Wikipedia)

Just ask Obama how many times has he gone against his own party? Oh, now don't tell me that the Democrat Party has always been "right". Nobody's perfect.

By August 2004, McCain had the best favorable-to-unfavorable rating (55 percent to 19 percent) of any national politician; He campaigned for Bush much more than he had four years previously, though the two remained situational allies rather than friends. (Wikipedia)

Breaking from his 2001 and 2003 votes, McCain supported the Bush tax cut extension in May 2006, saying not to do so would amount to a tax increase. (Wikipedia)

Meanwhile, McCain continued questioning the progress of the war in Iraq. In September 2005, he remarked upon Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers' optimistic outlook on the war's progress: "Things have not gone as well as we had planned or expected, nor as we were told by you, General Myers." In August 2006, he criticized the administration for continually understating the effectiveness of the insurgency: "We [have] not told the American people how tough and difficult this could be." From the beginning, McCain strongly supported the Iraq troop surge of 2007. (Wikipedia)

I want to point out that the SURGE finally proved to be effective, even beyond "Obama's wildest dreams".

There are many other nice points about McCain, but I mentioned only those which Obama either criticized, or falsely presented to the public. When Obama tells the public that "If these allegations of me and Ayers being closely related were so true, why didn't McCain question me directly in the debate?" (not the exact words, but the exact interpretation), he is calling McCain a liar on his face. Pundits say that this shows Obama-Ayers relationship is just a distraction by the Republicans from the main issues. I agree. But does Obama really think McCain is an idiot to raise such issues in a debate related to economy and foreign policy?

Mr. Obama, you are lucky that Mr. McCain is a really angry man, who has controlled his anger so far. Don't make him angry, 'cause you may not like him when he is angry. And when "The Hulk" inside McCain explodes, you will see what can happen to your character. Beware Mr. Obama, beware.

Ciao for now. Thanks for reading this long post. I have started researching about Joe Biden (Remember I told in my VP debate post that he touched my heart). Hopefully something on his next time, something positive and good.

4 comments:

Shashi said...

Obama & Friends: Judge Not?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100902328.html

many have realized that McCain is late - may be too late...

Varun Reddy Sevva said...

Thanks for the link Shashikumar. I would like to make a few points on that:

1. I am happy that there are people in the mainstream media who feel like me that McCain is ding too much, but too late. The Wright controversy part was mentioned beautifully in the link you gave me.

2. I did not read too deep into the Ayers connection before, just gave some cursory glance before I got convinced that it was being blown out of proportion. But this article has made me rethink my stand and I feel that the Ayers controversy must have more to it than what meets the eye.

3. I really liked one paragraph in the article, which put my stand beautifully into context.

"Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. (I mentioned my liking for Obama for his intellect in one of my earlier posts). But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not."

Yep, tolerance of the obscene is certainly not a virtue. And that's why, I stand by John McCain.

4. Force Majeure is still not entirely improbable. Let's see, there are still 4 weeks left for the election. As the last 8 years have proved - Anyone can win! McCain's win seems unlikely, but I am happy that he will perform a lot better than what the exit polls suggest.

ram_the moron said...

forgive me if my views seem to backward, but i cant understand why do u think mccain is better in donation business than obama. You said that he has lesser donation amount than obama from nondescript donors but with obama's $400 million campaign amount the nondescript donations is very less for him to actually cheat about it.
see today's TOI...
accepted that he has made some wrong decisions. but who did not and u can't tell he is incompetent due to some of his mistakes.
as to wright issue, it would take a big thing to admit that a father figure or one who has guided for a significant part of your life is wrong in some of his intentions. he has accepted that wright was a father figure but that he has also made some mistakes because of which he can't continue to be with him. i can't find the wrong he did? accepting him as a father figure when there was no one to guide him or telling that his views were wrong when the time came?

Varun Reddy Sevva said...

See GZR,

First of all, your views are liberal and are in no way "backward". I know that McCain has lesser number of donors and also lesser campaign finances as compared to Obama. But I wan to remind you that McCain or Obama - one of them will lead USA in the future. I just reiterated what I have read in the media and I believe stuff only after reading it. I dunno and neither does anyone else who is the really better candidate. It's just people have opinions.

I was merely pointing to the words said by the campaign finance manager that because of large number of donors it becomes "tough". Well, the Presidency will be even tougher, at that time he cannot give such irresponsible excuses.

I have nothing against Obama, just that when I support McCain, I have my reasons. I started supporting McCain vocally and openly after the race became biased towards Obama, as I wanted to give the story from the other side too.

You talked about wrong decisions - And your point is excellent. But you must be knowing this - it is that every point of "making some wrong decisions" that Obama and Co. accuse McCain of. For the Obama Campaign, each McCain mistake is a mistake and there are no "Obama Mistakes". I hate such attitude and just sought to balance it out by highlighting that Obama is not a God.

I will tell you what wrong Obama did - He listened to Wright and the very same sermons for 20 years. Then he listened to him and socialized with him because it was needed for him to be associated with the Black Church which had guided him from his childhood. But now, since Wright is like a wall on his path to becoming the President, he disowned him. You must have seen how the Wright controversy developed - First Obama declared openly that he cannot disown him and then realizing that wright will be a problem, he disowned him. See, if I really don't like someone's views, I won't associate with him at all. I won't disown my father just because he refuses to change himself - when for all these years he has been guiding me through the very same behaviour. Wright has been making the same "mistakes" for the last 20 years. Then why did he disown him now?